You would think that politicians, once in power, would relish the opportunity to wield it. Yet Congress has increasingly abdicated its basic responsibility to make law.

Instead, it delegates “rule making” responsibility to administrative agencies — part of the executive branch. The rules these agencies come up with often have nothing to do with the intent of the law, and overreach into the lives of private citizens with no accountability.

Against this anti-democratic process, the Congressional Review Act was signed into law in 1996 by then-President Bill Clinton. It requires administrative agencies to submit rule changes to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Congress doesn’t have to vote, and they frequently don’t, but do they have to be given the choice.

Sometimes, agencies have failed to submit rule changes or tried to circumvent the CRA because they find the requirements to be vague. Now Democrats are even calling for the repeal of the CRA.

Congressional laziness is turning regulators into lawmakers, and giving the executive branch far more power than the Founders ever imagined. Frank Buckley calls the presidency an “elective monarchy.” Philip Hamburger says that the power given to a runaway administrative state has morphed into the new “royal prerogative.” I’ve covered the overreach of the administrative state nearly a dozen times on my show, including the “midnight regulations” passed into law by President Obama during the last week of his presidency.

Since 2017, Congress has begun to renew its constitutional vocation as the legislative branch, and exercise its authority under the Congressional Review Act to strike down questionable rule changes.

Jonathan Wood, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, has been leading the charge in the courts to hold administrative agencies accountable. He recently won a victory on behalf of an Idaho ranch that was threatened by a controversial rule, which the Bureau of Land Management had not submitted to Congress for review.

The sweeping rule would have changed the status of 70 million acres of federal lands to protect the greater sage grouse — a fascinating bird by all measures, but not an endangered species. This change would have threatened the livelihood of ranchers and cost billions to the economy.

But lest anyone criticize Wood for having it in for the poor Grouse, he has also written a report on how we could improve the Endangered Species Act in The Road to Recovery. Basically, Wood says we should be rewarding property owners who keep rare species alive on their property, not punishing them with regulations and command-and-control style preservation efforts that don’t get results.

Fortunately, the court smacked down the administrative agency and required them to go through Congress to have the rule approved or rejected. One question still remains: will Congress do its job and vote on the rule, or will they continue abdicate power once again?

It seems like an ironclad law that whenever government declares war on an illicit activity, the problem gets worse. Elizabeth Nolan Brown is an award-winning journalist and Reason editor who writes about how hysteria around human trafficking has created a “War on Sex Workers” to complement the failed Wars on Drugs, Poverty, and Terror. The co-founder of Feminists for Liberty, she belongs to the wave of feminism that believes women are capable of freely choosing to engage in the world’s oldest occupation, and should be permitted to do so without harassment.

Before clutching your pearls, put on your Bastiat-hat for a moment and consider the unseen effects of criminalizing prostitution. Where it is illegal, women who would otherwise voluntarily become sex workers face the possibility of being abused by their clients with no recourse to law enforcement. Meanwhile, those who are being trafficked will continue to meet an inevitable black market demand.

Bastiat says, “Train yourself to look not just at the seen, but the unseen.”

If Bastiat isn’t your cup of tea, perhaps you’ll listen to moral theologians from Augustine to Aquinas who have supported legalized prostitution. Many countries operate regulated brothels to protect workers, but in our Puritan-founded country, we often fail to distinguish between the clear crime of sex trafficking and the victimless crime of voluntary prostitution. Historically, U.S. law enforcement has conflated the two in order scare the public into supporting a ban on prostitution.

Nolan Brown believes the latest hysteria spawned from Patriots’ owner Robert Kraft — if it results in tougher crackdowns on prostitutes — will harm innocent women and create an unnecessary bogeyman. She also has a message for an easily-excited media audience: Stop Letting People Lie to You About Hate Crime and Human Trafficking Spikes. The increase in reported sex trafficking cases (like hate crimes), comes from flawed data and reporting. There is no epidemic, and the hysteria is bringing more and more non-trafficked sex workers into the legal system’s dragnet.

But does legalized prostitution increase human traffickings? Here, a question of principle turns into an empirical puzzle over which there is some disagreement. Certainly, stark differences between jurisdictions create islands of legalization and incentives for traffickers to transport women across borders like commodities, but statistics on sex trafficking are notoriously unreliable. Advocacy groups often inflate figures to attract more money from the government, and law enforcement is rewarded for each “perp” they bring to justice. Brown has documented cases in which aggressive policing and media sensationalism have portrayed what turn out to be small, voluntary prostitution rings as major organized human-trafficking schemes.

My take: Everyone wants to pose as the Knight in Shining Armor who rescues women from being trafficked, including President Trump — who is using the issue as a talking point for his Wall. There are no perfect solutions in an unjust world, but a rational society might start by acknowledging that not all sex workers are victims. Even if you oppose prostitution, government crackdowns are no substitute for cultural change. David Marcus may have his heart in the right place, but he fails to consider how the market might regulate liaisons between consenting adults, while keeping questions of morals in the cultural arena and only questions of coercion in the hands of law enforcement.

Related Shows:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoFree Banking vs. Free MoneyCato InstituteDebtFree MarketBob ZadekFri, 01 Mar 2019 23:10:25 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2019/3/1/free-banking-vs-freenbspmoney53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5c79a38ff4e1fcd899136be6George Selgin on the Mind-Bending Methods of Modern Monetary TheoryYou know you’re in trouble when your economic theories are so far to the left that Paul Krugman calls you out for neglecting the dangers of too much government spending.

Such is the dilemma of the Modern Monetary Theorists — best known for providing Bernie Sanders with the intellectual ammo for his big-spending agenda.

Modern Monetary Theory holds that we don’t need to worry about deficits, since government can always pay for its programs by making more money. When asked about the nightmares of Zimbabwe, the Weimar Republic and former Yugoslavia, the MMTers must admit that we need taxes to drain currency from the economy just before hyperinflation kicks in.

Trusting Congress to raise taxes at some future date in advance of a sudden and unpredictable bout of inflation is wishful thinking, and this is just one way MMTers use hand-waving to disguise a brute fact: to spend is to tax.

Planet Money hosts Alex Goldmark and Sally Helm take a question from a 13-year-old listener in Bristol, England, as the starting point for their exploration of “free money.” The girl wonders, endearingly, if government could simply spend newly-created money on underfunded schools and hospitals, rather than creating money through the banking system (as the Fed currently does).

Helm and Goldmark use the segment to celebrate MMT’s moment in the spotlight—which includes Kelton’s warm reception by the House of Lords and her advisory role for Bernie “Remember Castro’s Good Side” Sanders. They give her a platform to do much of the usual hand-waving one finds deeper in the MMT blogosphere. Of course there is a natural synergy between politicians who always wish to spend without consequences, and an economic theory that allows them to do so guilt-free.

Selgin joins the show this Sunday to look more closely at the MMT perpetual motion machine and reveal the sleight of hand employed by its adherents, who always seem to retreat into obscure jargon when pressed beyond accounting identities. He boiled down a Huffington Post op-ed by Stephanie Kelton to a sort of naïve Keynesianism, where the usual assumption is that government can boost “aggregate demand” when there are idle resources—as there were during the Great Depression, when 20% of the workforce suddenly lost their jobs.

We are now living in very different times, and the idea of limitless spending is dangerous if it catches on with the broader public. All thinking people must understand at least the contours of this debate. Charlie Deist, producer of the show and editor of a short primer on macroeconomics and monetary policy, will ask George to cut through the mind-bending tactics of the Modern Monetary Theorists.

I was careful not to be too dour in my “Progress Report for Liberty: 2018,” noting that many subtle victories for liberty were achieved at the state level while the vitriol of national politics raged around us like a storm. Classical liberals should be cheerful about the ongoing reforms to our drug laws, the forward march of technology, and some notably positive developments in the Supreme Court (including the landmark decision of Janus v. AFSCME).

However, I also noted the frightful prospect of a national political scene in which Elizabeth Warren scores points for proposing full-on socialism sneakily disguised as the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” John O. McGinnis, the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law and author of Originalism And The Good Constitution(among other books), has an even more pessimistic take in his recap article, 2018: A Gathering Storm for Classical Liberalism.

He notes, first, the ominous trend toward populism, and the popularity of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who promise to “protect” Americans from the very same forces of competition and free-market dynamism that have built America into the most prosperous nation on earth.

Second, although President Trump has ostensibly done some good for free markets, his persona has contributed to what Gene Healy calls “the Cult of the Presidency,” and placed government right at the center of American social life. Based on these dual forces, McGinnis forecasts a gathering storm, in which aggrandizement of the state acts as the engine for a future collectivist revival.

McGinnis joined me this Sunday to discuss how the President’s recent emergency declaration sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. Your calls are welcome on the show of ideas, not attitude:

2020 election forecasters would do well to look to California as an early indicator of how the Democratic Party might position itself to compete with President Trump’s popular style. As the saying goes, “As California goes, so goes the nation.”

In areas from the environment to immigration, California has tried its unique left-coast spin on Federalism — bucking national standards in favor of its own progressive exemptions. Our vehicle emission standards have shaped the national debate, and the ambitious high speed rail bill is emblematic of California’s can-do spirit when it comes to tackling greenhouse gas emissions.

Governor Gavin Newsom says there’s “no way” he’s running for President in 2020—he has a job to do for at least 4 years—but the agenda he laid out in his recent State of the State address reflects the likely priorities of the pool of Democratic contenders. It was boldly progressive, pitting “California Values” against the President’s vision of America. Yet compared to the extremism of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal,” Newsom’s environmental agenda looks conservative.

Marc Joffe, a senior policy analyst for the Reason Foundation, did the rest of us a favor by tuning in to the Governor’s address last week, and recently wrote a piece dealing with a surprisingly pragmatic plank of Newsom’s agenda. Whereas former Governor Brown hoped the bullet train from LA to SF would be his legacy and didn’t budge in the face of harsh economic realities, Newsom is confronting the possibility of a lack of funds to complete the project. He used his speech to signal his plans to limit costs by truncating the proposed line south of Bakersfield and west of Merced:

“Let’s level about high-speed rail. The current project, as planned, would cost too much and, respectfully, take too long.” — Gavin Newsom in his first State of the State address

It looks like the classic parable* of the builder who failed to take stock of his inventory before beginning a project, and finds himself short before it’s finished. In this case, California may still be able to cut its losses before incurring the most expensive sections of the rail, although the sunk costs include the construction of the now-overkill “Transbay Terminal” that was supposed to serve as the terminus in San Francisco. Joffe notes that the $2.2 billion station will now amount to little more than an enormous bus stop.

Moderates in the Democratic Party would be wise to read up on the cold, hard experience of HSR in California, which demonstrates why centrally-planned mega-projects are a bad way to combat greenhouse gas emissions. Marc summarized the main reasons in a recent article:

Chester and Horvath estimated that it would take high-speed rail 71 years of operation at medium occupancy to offset its own construction-related greenhouse-gas emissions. Given the project’s delays and carbon reductions being achieved by new technology, like electric vehicles, it is possible that, if built, the rail system will never pay back the carbon investment required to build it.

Such figures raise the specter that a Green New Deal, which invests massively in the present to offset future carbon emissions, will merely accelerate the warming effects of industrial capitalism (if you buy into that premise).

Marc and Charlie explore the “Net Present Value” calculations necessary for a full accounting of costs and benefits of various green technologies.

Related Shows:

*The whole entrepreneurial class is, as it were, in the position of a master builder whose task is to construct a building out of a limited supply of building materials. If this man overestimates the quantity of the available supply, he drafts a plan for the execution of which the means at his disposal are not sufficient. He overbuilds the groundwork and the foundations and discovers only later, in the progress of the construction, that he lacks the material needed for the completion of the structure.

You probably have never heard of Dr. Benjamin Rush — the only medical doctor to sign the Declaration of Independence—and although his star has faded over time, his influence over the better-known founders was second to none.

Today, when Rush’s named is mentioned, it is often in reference to his mistaken belief in the efficacy of bloodletting as a treatment for everything from Yellow Fever to mental illness. Suffering from cramps? Try letting out a few ounces of blood. For persistent headaches, maybe drain a couple of pints. In the most extreme cases, such as the mysterious and deadly virus that devastated many colonial cities in the decades following the American Revolution, Dr. Rush prescribed repeated and prolonged bloodletting of up to 75% of his patients’ blood.

While his treatments of the Yellow Fever epidemic may have failed (and in some cases made his patients worse), Rush also intuited one of the root causes in the damp, filthy streets of the time. He thought the illness resulted from a toxic miasma emanating from the moisture, when in fact it was spread by mosquitos breeding in the stagnant water pools. In any event, his tireless campaigning for improved sanitation and hygiene were a major part of the solution.

Like all of the Founding Fathers, Rush was a product of his time. He studied under the best and brightest, and tended to thousands of sick with his burgeoning knowledge of medicine. It’s easy to focus on his blunders, borne of the universal ignorance of doctors of his time, and look past his many accomplishments. Harlow Unger, the prolific historian who has authored 10 biographies of founding fathers, has released the antidote to this one-sided treatment of a fascinating but little-known figure of American history in his new biography, Dr. Benjamin Rush: The Founding Father Who Healed a Wounded Nation.

Unger records Rush’s close relationships with Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, how he healed a divided nation at many critical junctures, and how his pioneering social work laid a foundation for the fulfillment of the Constitution’s promise of equal liberty for all.

Unger thoroughly dispels the notion that history is all dates and names. He casts the story of Rush’s life and times in such vivid detail that the reader feels as if he was amid the horrible outbreak of Yellow Fever, which simultaneously devastated city populations along the Eastern Seaboard yet may have saved the fledgling union from a rebellion brewing in New York at the hands of French envoy to the U.S., Edmund-Charles Genet.

Even the avid student of American history will learn much from Unger’s book, and my live conversation with him this Sunday — 8–9am PACIFIC—on the show of ideas, not attitude. As always, your calls are welcome at (424) BOB-SHOW.

The horrors of life in Venezuela are well-documented, and have been presented on this show in the past by guests like Fergus Hodgson (aka “the Stateless Man”), who shared his first-hand experience of South American dysfunction. This Sunday, we will hear from someone who has been positioned even closer to the center of Venezuelan politics, first as a supporter, then as an arch-critic.

Clifton Ross is a Berkeley-based writer, film journalist and poet who describes his conversion from Bolivarian co-revolutionary to skeptic and eventual enemy of socialism in his memoir, Home from the Dark Side of Utopia. He had been reporting on Latin American revolutionary and social movements since 1982, when he produced the 2016 documentary titled “In the Shadow of the Revolution.”

This project earned him the disdain of his former comrades—including many arm-chair revolutionaries from the U.S., who never witnessed the devastation of the Chavista regime firsthand. For decades, he was a true believer in the Bolivarian project, and at one time was even put up in the Caracas Hilton by the government during the Second World Poetry Festival of Venezuela. Despite completely rejecting socialism now, Ross remains in solidarity with many of the social movements that have taken root in opposition to Chavez/Maduro.

The latest opposition coalition includes elements from center-right to left. Guiadó, the rightly elected president of the National Assembly (akin to America’s Congress) has gained support of the international community by leading the charge to restore fair elections, representative democracy, and all of the civic institutions that make dictators shudder. Unlike in the past, when such regime change was spearheaded by U.S. intelligence agencies, this time it seems like a natural result of Maduro’s unpopularity combined with the incompetence of his patrons in the military, state-owned industry, and media. (Contrary to what you may have heard, the opposition is succeeding in spite of not because ofsupport from President Trump’s support.)

A Conversion of Sorts

Ross’s views shifted most dramatically in 2013, after seeing how enforcing socialism in Venezuela required the use of totalitarian tactics. In a recent interview, he was quoted saying:

“I no longer think socialism has anything of value to offer the world, even if I think it was a useful movement in the twentieth century to raise important issues of solidarity, social justice, class conflict and so on. But the very fact that it required a totalitarian state to destroy a market economy and centralize all power so as to guarantee the establishment and continuation of its utopian project entailed the elimination of real solidarity and real social justice. How can you have solidarity when you’re afraid the worker standing next to you might be undercover police who could arrest you for saying the wrong thing?”

His memoir makes the same point, nothing that all political ideologies are rooted in a mythological idea of the Revolution (capital R) along with some messianic ideal of perfection. In socialism this is embodied by the Workers. In the neoliberal ideology it is the Self-Regulating Market. True revolutions, he says, are a restoration or conservation of original principles—not the creation of Utopia. Many of Ross’s ideas will be familiar to classical liberals, but he also embraces less talked about “first principles,” such as those promoted by the indigenous social movements of South America. Native peoples are especially concerned with the extractive practices of Venezuela’s oil industry, which could end up endangering the planet in the name of loftier ideals of “progress” and “the people.” Filling the void left by the old Leninist vanguard in Venezuela will require a democratic patchwork of smaller social movements. These can only be sustained, Ross argues, by liberal democracy with checks and balances on power.

Clif joined Bob for the full hour to explain how he came to see the truth about himself and the “Revolution,” in all its complex shades of light. They dissect Clif’s journey from his conservative Christian upbringing on Air Force Bases, through liberation theology in Berkeley and the Zapatistas in Mexico, to his career as a skeptical independent writer/filmmaker. Lastly, they discuss what fundamentalist religions share in common with radical socialism, and how in the long run left-wing and right authoritarianism converge on a vision of Apocalyptic Utopian Messianic Millenarianism (AUMM).

Libertarians are and ought to be naturally skeptical of crowds. Passionate groups may be necessary for some kinds of progress, but it is a recipe for trouble whenever one faction holds too much power.

The brouhaha around the Covington Catholic kids seems to stem from the crowd dynamics and powerful visuals displayed at the Lincoln Memorial last weekend. On one side was a group of rowdy prep school boys—some wearing MAGA hats—fired up by professional antagonists on the other. It’s really no wonder many recoiled at the image of a lone native American elder surrounded by jeering faces of “white privilege,” even though later video revealed a much more nuanced picture.

Soon the response to the incident turned into a mob of its own and one individual from the crowd of rambunctious boys became the target of an unprecedented drive-by media shooting. This was a separate event from the boys’ tribalistic display, which itself was an off-shoot of another group’s aggressive tribalism (a group known as the Black Hebrew Israelites hurled vile insults for nearly an hour before the boys began their school chants). But by the time the full video footage came to light, vindicating the boys and implicating those who rushed to judgment, the damage to the Republic had already been done.

A Twitter mob descended on the boys. Threats poured into their Kentucky high school and false accusations were directed at innocent bystanders. Confirmation bias and selection of preferred facts was the genre du jour on social media, and rumors and innuendo ruled the day. It was a textbook case of the “Truth Decay” I recently explored with RAND corporation’s Jennifer Kavanagh.

Eventually, Robby Soave (an editor of Reason Magazine) decided to actually watch the footage in its entirety to see what really happened. Soave has a keen eye for media hoaxes on politically charged issues—he was one of the first to express skepticism when Rolling Stone released the now-debunked UVA rape story. However, his critical eye toward sloppy journalism does not make him a knee-jerk contrarian. He has also pointed out that while we should not automatically believe everyone who claims victimhood, neither should we dismiss such claims lightly.

Soave’s careful article was widely read and provoked apologies from many on the left and the right. Calmer heads may not have prevailed, but the article slowed down the spiral of madness.

The point of this is emphatically not to take sides with one tribe or another, nor is it to neglect to assign guilt to those who acted foolishly or perpetuated false narratives, but simply to recognize that our politics have devolved into an ugly form tribal warfare. In rushing to find, tar, and feather the ideal political scapegoat, every tribe in the culture war ends up obscuring the real victims and creating new ones in the process.

I have pointed out that this is inevitable when so much power is vested in the Federal Government. “We the People” feel powerless, and so we lash out in fear and anger.

There are two remedies as I see it:

1) Fact-based journalism — we need to value media that takes time to digest the facts before reaching a conclusion. Soave has done an exemplary job on this front, and I look forward to hosting him on my show to discuss the topic with the care that it deserves.

2) Decentralization of power — Whether or not people realize it, much of the rancor and polarization of our politics stems from its increasing centralization. When power solidifies in Washington D.C., there is a demonstrative erosion of freedom. When people feel freedom disappearing, they feel powerless. This brings out the worst in them.

One more thing we can do to combat the dangers of rapid-response social media is foster in-depth conversations where the truth can be analyzed from all angles. Tune in to the show this Sunday(8–9am Pacific Time) to my conversation with Robby about what happened, and what it means for our democracy.

Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom has sold over a million copies, but when it was first published in 1962 it introduced Americans to a very different worldview from the prevailing winds of increased spending and regulation.

While today most economists have conceded that Friedman was correct in his recommendations to reduce trade barriers, cut unnecessary spending, and reform welfare to eliminate the disincentives to work, some of his key ideas remain controversial. Friedman took a radical stance against all forms of government licensing — including the licensing of doctors, which he said leads to inferior care and the establishment of a medical cartel.

For some, this pill is too bitter to swallow. Consumers, the story goes, demand licensing and registration of occupations that require in-depth knowledge and extra precaution, such as medicine. However, as Friedman pointed out, it is rarely consumers who lobby the government to institute licensing requirements, but rather existing professionals seeking to keep out the competition. He writes:

Licensure therefore frequently establishes essentially the medieval guild kind of regulation in which the state assigns power to members of the profession.…The most obvious social cost is that any one of these measures, whether it be registration, certification or licensure, almost inevitably becomes a tool in the hands of a special producer group to obtain a monopoly position at the expense of the rest of the public. There is no way to avoid this result.…The members [of the profession] look solely at technical standards of performance, and argue that we must have only first-rate physicians even if this means that some people get no medical service — though of course they never put it that way. Nonetheless, the view that people should get only the “optimum” medical service always leads to a restrictive policy. — Chapter 9, *Capitalism and Freedom*

Against a one-size-fits-all “Cadillac” healthcare system, groups of nurse practitioners have come up with legislation to break through medical monopoly to offer primary care services. Some of these bills, such as California’s SB 491 were introduced only to be defeated — despite support from the AARP — because of the stranglehold of more powerful lobbies like the American Medical Association.

Today, the battle over occupational licensing is playing out in the states, with California among the strictest (nearly 1/5 of working Californians need a license for their jobs). Dr. Morris M. Kleiner, a professor and AFL-CIO Chair in Labor Policy at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, is a leading expert on licensing who studies the economic impact — seen and unseen — of forcing people to jump through hoops before practicing their chosen profession.

Dr. Kleiner joins the show this Sunday to discuss a report he published for the Institute for Justice last year titled, “At What Cost? State and National Estimates of the Economic Costs of Occupational Licensing.”He and is co-author estimate that licensing costs nearly 2 million jobs, and hundreds of billions of dollars. Some of these costs can be understood clearly — services in licensed industries are more expensive. Others are less obviously measurable, such as the misallocation of resources — particularly of human capital — when people are forced to either fulfill burdensome licensing requirements or abandon their vocation in favor of less productive work.

While there may be some benefits to those with the time and resources to jump through government hoops, this reward accrues at the expense of the most disadvantaged members of society — the poor and unskilled.

I’ll ask Kleiner which states are leading the way to reform, and how groups like the IJ are fighting the government in court on behalf of our vital economic freedoms. You won’t want to miss it.

Listen Live, Sunday, from 8–9am PACIFIC and call in with your questions to (424) BOB-SHOW.

Bob describes the government shutdown as a self-inflicted wound by Congress and the two main political parties acting in concert to do nothing about the immigration crisis. He and Craig reflect on the major trends from the previous year, including the federalist victories happening across the states, the legalization of marijuana, and the creeping socialism in the Democratic party.

]]>Erwan LeCorre on Free Movement in NatureEducationTransportationBob ZadekMon, 14 Jan 2019 17:20:43 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2019/1/14/erwan-lecorre-on-free-movement-in-nature53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5c3ca9304d7a9c27818da97cErwan LeCorre, founder of the MovNat system, spent his childhood exploring
the French countryside. In young adulthood he scaled walls and practiced
free running (aka “Parkour”) on the streets of Paris. Today he leads an
international movement of natural movers reclaiming the techniques our
ancestors used to survive in a much wilder world.

Erwan LeCorre, founder of the MovNat system, spent his childhood exploring the French countryside –sprinting through the woods, climbing trees, and jumping across creeks. In young adulthood he scaled walls and practiced free running (aka “parkour”) on the streets of Paris. Today he leads an international movement of natural movers reclaiming the techniques our ancestors used to survive in a much wilder world. MovNat is short for “natural movement” or “movement in nature” – a system of physical fitness designed to free people from the grind of modern sedentary life.

We are trained to think that freedom is mostly about what the government or other people tell us we can and cannot do, yet there is a large sphere of human action in which no one can dictate to us. Freedom of movement goes beyond simply being able to chose which state or country you travel to. It also depends on being able to actually navigate the world, with all of its complex terrain and seeming obstacle courses.

The modern medical establishment tends to prescribe patients a regimen of boring, repetitive exercise at the gym – fitting for obedient subjects to a state-run healthcare system. But whereas an exercise machine dictates exactly how you can and cannot move, the techniques explained in Erwan’s new book,The Practice of Natural Movement, can be done almost anywhere and modified to suit to the practical needs and constraints of the practitioner. Natural movement replaces artificial movement and leads those who practice it to become strong in ways that are useful in variety of real-world situations.

This show’s producer Charlie Deist spoke with Erwan about his new book and the problem of our self-imposed domestication. They discuss what it means to be a “zoo human,” and explore ways that people can incorporate natural movement into their own life. Listen now, and make 2019 the year you reclaim your health and freedom of movement.

Maybe you would use a fact-checking site, like the Pulitzer-prize winning Politifact, in spite of the inevitable bias that such an effort entails.

In academia, there is a “crisis of replicability,” in which the results of most papers can’t demonstrated a second time achieved with any reliability. And even the most trusted encyclopedias are written by scholar with a well-known Anglo-centric bias.

Instead, most of us seem to cobble together our political opinions based on some combination of our upbringing, our friends’ opinions, and whatever news and analysis we can find that upholds those biases. Today, this process of “confirmation bias” happens faster than ever, and the effect of polarization on our politics is strong.

The RAND (Research ANd Development) Corporation has been worrying about problems like this for over 70 years. Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior political scientist at the DC-based research institute, recently penned a book with the organization’s President and CEO Michael D. Rich titled, Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life. The premise is simple but the solution is anything but. Facts and data rule everything around us, from military strategy to technology and business development. It is only in the area of politics that there is so little reliance and so little agreement on the facts — what they are, and what they imply for policy.

Kavanagh joined me to diagnose the growing disregard for facts in the civic discourse, and offer solutions to the widening gap in what “We the People” believe to be true about our public institutions.

This is a particularly difficult enterprise, since we all have biases and journalism has forgone its traditional role of truth-telling in favor of blatant editorializing. The left points to Fox News as the epitome of the problem, while the right points to Vox.com. Both sides convince themselves that the other side has a monopoly on mendacity, and we hunker down deeper in our intellectual echo chambers.

My Take:

I always do my best to feature a wide spectrum of opinion (this is the show of ideas, not attitude) and this show is no exception. Did I defend my own biases and preferred news sources to Kavanagh coherently? You be the judge.

The RAND Corporation exists to make policy suggestions, but I will probe whether government can do anything about this problem, or if its interference in the free market for information can only make things worse. In most industries, getting the facts wrong quickly leads entrepreneurs to go out of business. It is only in the realm of government that “policy entrepreneurs” (i.e., politicians) can remain wrong on basic matters of fact and continue to control the purse strings.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoLow Tweets and Misdemeanors: The Impeachment Debate Through the Lens of History and the ConstitutionCato InstituteConstitutionPresidential PowerBob ZadekSun, 30 Dec 2018 17:14:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/12/30/low-tweets-and-misdemeanors53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5c25087989858382ee25fd39Gene Healy analyzes the “Indispensable Remedy” in light of President
Trump’s “Conduct Unbecoming”

“Few, if any, of the Framers viewed the prospect of presidential impeachment with the unbridled horror common among intellectual leaders today. CEOs can be cashiered for “moral turpitude,” “unprofessional conduct,” and the like. Yet we’ve somehow managed to convince ourselves that the one job in America where you have to commit a felony to get fired is the one where you actually get nuclear weapons.” — Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power

Much of this is partisan hype, and incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has already signaled that she will rein in her colleagues’ excesses. She recently commented that “when and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up.” Allegations of campaign finance violations from Trump’s hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels could fall into this category, but most experts see this is as a flimsy justification.

However, there may still be valid reasons to use what James Madison called “the indispensable remedy” against Trump’s abuses of the executive office. Pelosi’s comments stem from a common misconception about impeachment that it can only be used when the law has been broken, when in fact it can be used to address a much wider range of “conduct unbecoming” to the Presidency.

Gene Healy, a Vice President at the Cato Institute, is trying to dispel this and other myths about impeachment. Without making a specific case for impeaching Trump (with all the partisan pitfalls that would entail), Healy’s latest white paper serves as a primer on the purpose, history, and scope of impeachment provisions. He concludes that the remedy is an important deterrent against the “incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” He argues that impeachment has probably not been used often enough in the past 230 years when Presidents have exhibited these traits without technically breaking the law. Some of the Commander-in-Chief’s tweets are a prime example.

Healy is a leading critic of the “Cult of the Presidency,” which believes the office of the executive to be sacrosanct. The Founders would have abhorred the idea of the President being beyond reproach or — in the extreme case — removal from office. He joined me to discuss the Framers’ intention with respect to impeachment.

While most analyses are clouded with political bias and tribalism, Healy recognizes the danger in raising or lowering the bar for impeachment to suit the latest political winds. “What you think of Congress’ impeachment power shouldn’t depend on what you think of President Trump,” he writes, “Donald Trump isn’t going to be the last president we have, so it’s important to get this right.”

Now that the government appears on the verge of shutdown over the issue of “the Wall,” it’s become impossible to ignore the resurgence of nationalist sentiment both in America and abroad.

What should a libertarian make of trends like Brexit in the UK, and the election of a self-identified nationalist like Donald Trump to the American presidency? Are the philosophies of libertarianism compatible with the principles of an international order made up of a multitude of nationalist countries?

On the one hand, nation states have a centuries-long history of waging war against one another, colonizing and oppressing foreign lands and peoples, and violating the natural rights of their own citizens.

On the other hand, international governing bodies like the European Union and United Nations also pose a threat to the self-determination of the American people and, by extension, our liberty as individuals. Perhaps a realignment is needed.

In his new book The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony makes an intellectually rigorous case for nationalism in general and for the specific case of his own country, Israel. Hazony, President of the Zionist Herzl Institute, argues that nationalism is the only stable alternative to a creeping “liberal internationalism,” which he says is merely a modern version of the age-old concept of empire. Sometimes referred to as “globalism” or “transnationalism,” this rules-based order seeks to secure global peace and grow the scope of its power by limiting the ability of nations to chart their own course.

Against the twin extremes of anarchy and internationalist empire, Hazony affirms the nation-state as the ideal political unit for securing individual liberties — supporting them within a context of a particular shared culture, mutual loyalty, and physical borders.

I chafe at some of the ideas in his book, like closed borders, but he makes too many important points not to engage them.

I discussed the Virtue of Nationalism with Yoram for the full hour. It was hardly enough time to dive into the full thesis of his book but we did our best.

The Virtues of Internationalism

At its core, the book is a critique of liberalism — not just progressive liberalism, but also the liberalism of Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.

It may come as a surprise to libertarians that these giants of classical liberalism thought we needed to move toward a global marketplace, in which borders wouldn’t interfere with free trade, and where peace would be enforced by an over-arching world state or international federation.

In his masterwork, Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, Mises writes:

“The greatest ideological question that mankind has ever faced… is… whether we shall succeed in creating throughout the world a frame of mind… [of] nothing less than the unqualified, unconditional acceptance of liberalism. Liberal thinking must permeate all nations, liberal principles must pervade all political institutions, if the prerequisites of peace are to be created and the causes of war eliminated.”

He elsewhere advocates for “a world super-state really deserving of the name… that would be capable of assuring the nations the peace they require.”

Neither Mises nor Hayek elaborated greatly on how this super-state would operate, or what kinds of checks and balances it would have, leaving the classical liberal in an uncomfortable position of speculating as to what this might look like and how it would prevent the usual problems of big government.

As listeners to my shows (and readers of my new book) know, I believe that federalism — i.e., delegating powers to states and localities — offers a solution to the most bitter political debates within the United States, and could be applied to any other country with a large diverse population. Hayek insisted that individualism was compatible with the mutual loyalties among citizens that Hazony thinks are essential to a body politic. Whether that body is a nation, a state, a county or a neighborhood seems less important than that it is voluntarily chosen by the members through free movement.

However, while an international federation could theoretically guarantee economic and civil liberties to members of nation states while leaving them autonomous in most other areas, Hazony says that such a system will always tend to oppose local, particular interests in favor of the universal interests of the empire. One argument for federalism is the ability of states to experiment with different policies to see what works best. Hazony notes that this same logic can be applied to nation states, and has been used by proponents of the competitive governance movement as a reason to “let 1,000 nations bloom.”

Liberal internationalism clamps down on such experiments, forcing a “one-size-fits-all” solution on countries that may not desire democratic governance or free markets. Can a classical liberal say with certainty that the economic system we support should be foisted on the rest of the world? Hazony says we should question this idea.

The Vices of Nationalism

Of course, the elephant in the room is the reputation nationalism has for inciting ethnic divisions and, in the extremes, racial hatred. Nazi Germany is the most obvious example of national pride and self-determination run amok. Hazony answers this with evidence that Hitler’s plans were in fact rooted in an imperial ambition that can be traced back to Immanuel Kant’s dream of a perpetual peace upheld by a “world state.” Before this, European monarchs joined hands with the Catholic church to extend the universal (temporal and spiritual) authority of a Holy Roman Empire.

Just like the Roman Emperors of an earlier age, Hitler sought to enforce a peace throughout Europe and the rest of the world through an imposed international order buttressed by German hegemony. The “Pax Germana” was prevented by the strong independent nations of the United States and United Kingdom. Since the war, however, mainstream thought among governing elites has tended to view these independent nations as a greater threat to peace than a new international order that limits national independence.

Hazony notes a strange a paradox since World War II, in which the extermination of Jews and Slavs has been used by one side — namely liberal internationalists — as the primary argument against nationalism, while a large faction of Jewish people have seen it as the decisive reason for the existence of an independent state of Israel.

You’ll have to read his entire book to get the full nuance of his perspective, and I encourage you to do so. Whether or not you plan to read the book, you won’t want to miss Hazony’s erudite perspective, combining history, political philosophy, and theology to make the case that liberty is best preserved within distinct and sovereign nations. Listen now:

Links:

Related Shows:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoRevenge of the Pen and the PhoneAmendmentsCivil LibertiesConstitutionImmigrationPresidential PowerBob ZadekSun, 16 Dec 2018 17:25:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/12/16/revenge-of-the-pen-and-the-phone53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5c17dc0baa4a99be1d81d5beTrump’s Proposed Executive Order to End Birth Right Citizenship is
Unconstitutional, But Will that Stop It?Few sections of the U.S. Constitution are richer or more uplifting than the “Citizenship Clause.” My eyes tear up a bit just reading the words:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14th Amendment fulfilled the Founders’ original promise of freedom for all, and enshrined the bedrock principle of equality before the law.

This first section was implemented to reverse the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which infamously denied citizenship to African Americans — even to freed slaves. Today, it is also widely understood to guarantee “birth right” citizenship to the children of immigrants — undocumented or otherwise. This right was first defended by the Republicans of Lincoln’s era and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898 when a case arose questioning the citizenship of a child of Chinese immigrants.

However, President Trump has turned an open-and-shut question of constitutionality into a political football — declaring that he will end birth right citizenship with the stroke of a pen. Executive orders, though not mentioned as a power granted in the Constitution, have increasingly been seen as a way for the President to do an end-run around a gridlocked Congress.

Nowhere has the debate over executive orders been more contentious than on the topic of immigration. In 2014, Barack Obama took the lack of bipartisan immigration reform as his cue to offer temporary legal status and an indefinite reprieve from deportation to the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. at the time. He did so via executive order. Libertarians warned of the dangerous precedent this would allow for future presidents. With Trump’s threat of an executive order to end birth right citizenship, we are seeing this fear confirmed.

Sheldon Gilbert, VP for Content and Development and a Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies with the National Constitution Center, joins the show to discuss whether Trump’s plan is constitutional (hint: it’s not).

In the spirit of intellectual honesty, Gilbert accurately summarized the case against birth right citizenship for the Daily Mail: If you do not owe allegiance to the United States, some argue, you do not have citizenship. Justice Antonin Scalia was sympathetic to this argument — saying that those here illegally are not bound by this allegiance, even though they are still compelled to follow the laws of the U.S. However, many scholars from both sides of the aisle have pointed out the mental acrobatics required for this interpretation to hold up. Many slaves were brought here “illegally” before the Civil War, yet these were exactly the people that Section I of the 14th Amendment sought to naturalize.

Here’s a preview of my take:

I often ask people who oppose illegal immigration what part they object to — the “illegal” part, or the “immigrant.” If it is the illegal part, there is a simple solution: the U.S. should naturalize any and all undocumented immigrants who are willing to pledge their allegiance to the flag. If it is the “immigrant” part, then I have little more to say to the person, since the U.S. is a country built and constantly renewed by immigrants.

If we can say one thing definitively about government, we can say that it will not limit itself. The Bill of Rights and Constitution were the Founders’ response to the possibility that the new Republic they were creating would end up just as oppressive as the crown government they were overthrowing.

Were they successful?

This question has been the most consistent theme of my show for the past 10 years.

The topic of my show this Sunday gets to the core of this question.

The case of Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover v. State of Indiana was argued last week, and we can expect a verdict by June. Tyson Timbs was convicted of dealing small amounts of heroin to fund a painkiller addiction he had developed after he began taking pain medications for a sore foot.

The police apprehended him in his vehicle — a $42,000 Land Rover, which he had purchased with the proceeds of his recently deceased father’s life insurance policy. Police seized the car, finding it guilty “in rem” (latin for “the thing itself”) and therefore subject to the practice known as civil asset forfeiture.

Even after Timbs paid his debt to society through a mixture of house arrest, mandatory rehab, and other fines (and even though the maximum fine for his crime is specified at $10,000) the state refused to return the vehicle.

“The right to be free from excessive fines remains fundamental today.”

This line from the Institute for Justice’s opening brief in Timbs’ defense encapsulates the decision before the Supreme Court. The power to fine, Timbs’ lawyers at the Institute for Justice note, is uniquely prone to abuse. Does the court affirm a tradition dating back to the Magna Carta that puts a check on the government’s ability to “police for profit”?

In this episode, Samuel Gedge, a lead attorney in the case, joins me to delve into the long history of excessive fines and explain why excessive fines are prohibited alongside “cruel and unusual punishment” in the 8th Amendment.

Civil asset forfeiture has a long and nasty history, and in recent times has been an instrument of religious and racist bigotry. The Court has long held that such punishments are not allowed at the federal level, but the State of Indiana argues that it is exempt as a state and is justified in the seizure of Timbs’ vehicle because of the in rem jurisdiction.

As we await the outcome in Timbs v. Indiana, we have reason to be optimistic. Justices on both sides of the political spectrum seemed skeptical of the State of Indiana’s line of reasoning — noting that most rights in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the states since the passage of the 14th Amendment.

There’s no better emblem of the complicated evolution of civil rights in America than the implementation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Originally passed to ensure equal access to educational resources, Title IX reads as follows:

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Although a libertarian might bristle at Title IX’s financial involvement in education, the statute otherwise seems innocuous — requiring nothing more than equal treatment for students, regardless of gender.

Since the 1970s, however, women have not only achieved parity with men in college admissions, they have surpassed men in graduation rates. Thus, the purpose of Title IX seems largely to have been achieved.

As the cultural landscape has changed, however, the focus of anti-discrimination efforts has also shifted. After omen could no longer claim discrimination at the admissions level, bureaucrats started to advocate in other areas like athletics, where men traditionally received more resources in accord with their greater interest in sports (especially at the elite level). Most people are familiar with Title IX’s equalization of athletics, but in terms of peak controversy, this was a passing phase in the law’s evolution.

Now, educational institutions have become the prime battleground in a larger culture war that includes the debates over sexual harassment, due process, “rape culture,” and transgender rights. In 2016, Republicans argued that Title IX has been perverted “by bureaucrats — and by the [then] President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people.”

How did the seemingly uncontroversial notion of non-discrimination has become such a lightning rod in the American culture war?

R. Shep Melnick is a professor of American politics at Boston College, where he focuses on the intersection of law and politics. Melnick argues that the current enforcement of Title IX has transformed the act from its original intention by politically motivated bureaucrats. He recently wrote The Transformation of Title IX[@The Brookings Institution Press (2018)] as a response to the partisan vortex that has swallowed rational discourse about the law. Shep joined the show to discuss the problems of overly-zealous administrative lawmaking in the context of the Title IX debate.

Dear Colleague: Due Process is Done

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has the authority to issue new rules governing non-discrimination. The Administrative Procedure Act specifies that prior to a rule change, there must be a period for “notice-and-comment” by relevant parties in the educational institutions. The modern controversy hinges around a few legally questionable actions taken by the OCR in its administration of Title IX.

In 2011, the Obama administration issued new “guidelines” on sexual harassment to federally-funded universities that bypassed the standard notice-and-comment requirements for such changes. The administration claimed its guidelines constituted mere “clarifications” of earlier policies. In contrast, statements from the administration suggested that it was a sweeping overhaul of the entire campus culture as it relates to sexual harassment complaints. The infamous “Dear Colleague Letter” — directed from the OCR to all universities receiving federal funds — specified that a single sexual harassment complaint could trigger a lengthy investigation of the institution — turning actual victims and the accused into pawns in the larger culture war.

Worse, the letter required schools to use the lowest possible standard of evidence (a mere “preponderance”) in deciding the fate of the accused. While not an official criminal proceeding, these campus tribunals often determined whether a student would be marked for life as a sexual predator — effectively denying him his rights to “life, liberty and property” without due process.

As K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor, authors of The Campus Rape Frenzy wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog last year:

The letter required universities to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty findings, a form of double jeopardy. It further told schools to accelerate their adjudications, with a recommended 60-day limit. And, perhaps most important, OCR strongly discouraged cross-examination of accusers, given the procedures that most universities employed.

Perhaps most frighteningly, government publications began to lecture schools on what constitutes a healthy, mutually respectful sexual relationship. Bureaucrats this by redefining sexual harassment as a form of discrimination, but only when the act targets a member of a particular sex. Strangely, a bisexual who is an “equal opportunity” offender — targeting both men and women — does not fall under the purview of Title IX complaints.

Melnick notes that the OCR’s mandated “sea change,” coupled with the threat of losing federal funding, has given rise to a new bureaucracy of Title IX coordinators at every major university.

The Transgender Transformation and Rule by Letter

The second questionable form of Obama-era administrative rule-making seems to have turned the intent of Title IX on its head. New guidelines redefined the word “sex” as it appears in the act to correspond to the gender identity of a student whose rights are being called into question. This legal maneuvering is particularly suspect since the term “gender identity” entered the lexicon as a way to distinguish one’s identity from their biological sex.

Morever, many Obama-era mandates (e.g., requiring colleges to allow biological males to use women’s locker rooms), not only opened the door for novel claims of harassment and discrimination, but took administrative lawmaking to new heights (or depths) of absurdity.

The Office of Civil Rights cannot reasonably resolve every discrimination and harassment issue in a sane and apolitical manner from its perch in Washington. President Trump has repealed the Obama guidelines, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has called for an end of “rule by letter.” Melnick sees this as a rare instance of sound policy and transparency from the Trump administration, but there is always a risk that it will merely flip the script and use the transgender issue to fire up the Republican base’s own culture warriors.

Here’s a preview of my take:

If Trump decides to take a page from Obama’s playbook, he might further polarize some of the most important civil rights concerns of the day. While some on the left have allowed the persecution of innocent men with dubious claims of a campus “rape culture,” others on the right have sometimes found a convenient scapegoat among individuals who don’t map neatly onto either biological sex.

No one is arguing that transgender individuals should be denied equal access to educational facilities, and there are valid civil rights concerns that must to be worked out on a case-by-case basis.

Whenever strings are attached to federal grants, there is erosion of the American system of federalism and policy experimentation at the state and local level. In this way, Title IX has been abused to impose a one-size-fits-all solution across the nation’s universities.

The federal government should leave room for different approaches to be tested, and OCR should focus on the basic of civil rights and clear cut cases of discrimination. The courts remain open to remedy situations where schools fail to render a fair decision.

For a full and nuanced perspective on the most important civil rights issues of the day, look no further than my show this Sunday with Shep Melnick.

The practice of “Gerrymandering” dates back to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Gerry (pronounced “Gary”) Eldridge signed a law enabling his party to redraw district lines such that they would remain in the majority. Oddly-shaped districts, often resembling crooked and lanky salamanders, have been a fixture of American politics ever since.

Redistricting reform is just one issue under the umbrella of the challenges inherent to representative democracy. Someone has to decide where to draw the lines, but who should it be? More importantly, how can we have fair and proper representation at all in a country with 300 million people?

The Founders’ solution was a House of Representatives that grew in size as the country got larger – but only up to a point. The House stopped growing after reaching its current size in the early 1900s. Now, each representative casts votes on behalf of more than 600,000 constituents — a number that keeps growing with the overall population.

Walter Olson, blogging pioneer and senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, laments the fact that our representatives have become so remote that politics can now only be conducted by mass media.

Politicians are treated more like celebrities than public servants, and the result is an aloof and unresponsive government.

Making matters worse, both major party establishments have entered in an unholy alliance wherein they allow each other to set district boundaries that insulate their preferred candidates from competition (both inside and outside of their party).

Walter says that libertarians and classical liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of politicians selecting their constituents, rather than vice versa.

He recently wrote the lead essay for a @Cato Unbound symposium titled, Why Libertarians — and Others — Should Care About Gerrymandering. He drew on his experience as co-chair of Maryland’s Redistricting Reform Commission. Maryland’s Governor Larry Hogan has been a leader on this issue, looking for solutions that can spread to other states. Their recommendations included requirements that districts be compact and contiguous with existing municipal boundaries. That means no snaking segments linking two predominantly Republican or Democratic regions to create safe havens for incumbents.

Walter returns to the showto discuss the challenges of designing a truly representational system of government. Bob will introduce his idea for a Federal representative body of 20,000 members, which need not even be linked to geographical areas.

Is is time for a Constitutional Convention to bring the House of Representatives into the 21st century, or can smaller reforms achieve a similar end?

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoThe Surprising Science of GMOsEnvironmentalismInnovationRegulatory AgenciesBob ZadekWed, 14 Nov 2018 15:38:27 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/11/14/the-surprising-science-of-gmos53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5bec3e810e2e72ba2e750108The organic industry is taking advantage of the average American’s
scientific illiteracy, says Pacific Research Institute Fellow Henry I.
Miller.The common narrative around Genetically Modified Organisms is that they are damaging public health, as Frankenstein creations of sinister “Big Agriculture.” We hear that companies like Monsanto are suppressing scientific evidence of these harms and conspiring to put small organic farms out of business.

In reality, these are delicate questions of science and economics. What are the ideal economies of scale for farming? What’s more harmful – the naturally-occurring pesticides in organic produce or the artificial pesticides used to shield modified organisms? Most people with strong opinions on organic food one way or another have not really thought through these questions. It takes an expert to understand all of the issues in play.

Fortunately, I had an expert on my show — Dr. Henry I. Miller is a physician and molecular biologist with expertise in policy, having served as founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. He recently a joined the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco as a Senior Fellow and was previously a fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

In truth, there is only one truth, says Miller — that which is obtained through the scientific method, in which falsifiable hypotheses are tested and results verified through repeated experimentation.

In a world full of fake news, who wouldn’t want to be guided by the best available evidence?

It turns out that pesticide companies are some of the biggest financial supporters of the rent-seeking organic industry. Furthermore, the vast majority of pesticides (read: bug killers) are produced naturally by crops themselves.

Henry joined me for this full hour this Sunday to make the case that the best evidence points to the safety of GMO foods and related biotechnology used for drugs. As director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology, Miller was responsible for aiding the approval of several genetically modified treatments that have been used to save lives.

Is there reason to take extra precautions in the face of unknown risks, or can science inform us with certainty that GMO is the way to go?

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoBeating Tribalism with FederalismBob ZadekMon, 05 Nov 2018 15:15:43 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/11/5/beating-tribalism-with-federalism53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5be05c8c2b6a28f9914a1494Got election stress? If we devolved power, we wouldn’t have to worry so
much.Note: The following is from the introduction of my new book Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Great Again. Federalism 2.0 is about experimentation with different policies in the states, and robust competition among them for citizens’ tax dollars. It restores powers to the states and to the people, as the founders originally intended.

Subscribe to our mailing list and get the free .pdf of Bob's new book *Power to the States.*

* indicates required
Email Address *First Name Last Name

This week, record numbers of Americans are headed to the polls to vote in what they believe to be a particularly consequential election.

Commentators worry about the “Balkanization” of America. East Coast liberals live in their urban enclaves; Republicans in suburban and rural areas. Conservatives absorb conservative media; progressives, progressive media. Many yearn for the civility of the “good old days.”

In fact, we have had incredibly brutal political campaigns since the founders’ era. The most bitter, insulting, and no-holds-barred presidential campaign in American history was the first one — the campaign of 1800, between Jefferson and Adams. So, I am not so sure that we have much to say for the “good old days.”

There have always been factions in our country, and there always will be. People are different, and many do not understand the life choices of others. These factions are not unhealthy. Different people have different points of view and they tend to group together. They live together, hang out together, and read the same papers. That’s natural. That is the exercise of choice. We have never had a country of people who just existed to be persuaded, and we never will.

We are entering a worrisome period of American politics. The divisions are so intense that I have never been so concerned about the country and system of government that I love. I’m usually optimistic. Now it’s hard to find optimism given the level of tribalism.

There is a clear relationship between the feeling of powerlessness and the anger toward the “other side.” The centralized and remote power of the Federal Government makes it more important for “our team” to have that power, since our lack of political control over Washington subjugates “us” to “their” will. Under the federalist system which the founders gave us, with most of the political power residing locally (or at least far closer to us than if it rested in distant Washington) we would feel, and we would be, far more in control.

With local control, Federal power would not matter all that much. “No taxation without representation” drove us to revolution. We now cry out “no political control with representation.”

I cherish the founding principles of federalism and have painfully concluded that Washington has abandoned its limited but essential constitutional mission of protecting our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It now uses its power to limit our natural rights — allowing us to exercise them only under carefully controlled conditions. The transfer of power from local to remote evolved from a combination of ill-advised constitutional amendments, and some unfortunate Supreme Court cases. Madison explained it best: “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

Before we despair, we should remember that this apparent “bug” is really a feature of the founders’ plans. Progress isn’t supposed to come from the Federal Government. It comes from individuals who make their own lives better through effort and personal sacrifice.

Of course, somebody has to write the laws. Fortunately, states remain — as Justice Louis Brandeis suggested — the “laboratories of democracy,” giving citizens the ability to “vote with their feet” in search of more limited government and greater control over their lives. States like California and New York, which find themselves losing population because of bad policies, are slowly catching on.

The founders always intended that most power over citizens should reside in the states and cities. Thus, a Californian who opposes a “nanny state” government of high taxes, and wealth transfers, can move to Texas. With most political power held by a federal government, the choice (if you can call it that) would be move to another country. This is a much more significant decision than moving to Austin, Texas from San Francisco, California.

Happily, states are rediscovering their historic powers affirmed by the Ninth and 10th Amendments. We see this in areas of drug policy, criminal justice reform, school choice, eminent domain, and even immigration here in my home state of California. Washington is more remote and aloof to Americans than England was several centuries ago to the colonists. States are responding to the needs of their citizens exactly as the founders intended.

On my show, I have never promoted the misleading agenda of “states’ rights,” which has often been used to justify even greater violations of individual liberty than federal encroachments. After all, states have no rights; only people do. (The states surrendered the most important “right” they had when they ratified the ill-conceived 17th Amendment). Instead, I aim to show how most political powers promote the preservation of liberty when they are decentralized. That decentralization begins with the devolution from Federal Government to states and localities.

For many years, I financially supported libertarian or libertarian-leaning candidates for federal office, but never saw any results. No candidate nor any group of candidates can affect even a slight change in the federal power trajectory. It has been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. My principles now prevent me from supporting any candidates for federal office or seeking any reform at the federal level. I have decided to put all of my efforts toward state and local candidates and issues. State legislatures have become testing grounds for sound governance, and libertarian ideals are on the rise.

In this short volume of edited transcripts, you’ll learn how libertarian ideas are winning across the country, thanks to the efforts of a small handful of think tanks, student activists, intellectuals, and politicians with a healthy understanding our “first principles”.

I try to use my show to provide a platform to those who are leveraging their own resources to make a maximum difference for liberty. The more we focus our attention on what can control, the more we will see real libertarian change. State-centric power gives us the opportunity to experiment with different political viewpoints. Once a single state successfully tests a policy change, other states will copy their success, or learn from their failure.

I do not object to Balkanization. I don’t care if a progressive never reads a conservative newspaper, nor do I aspire to change a progressive into a conservative. I love the fact that California is profoundly progressive, as is New York. I love that Texas is conservative. I don’t even aspire to make people nicer. I wish they were, but I don’t want to force it upon them. It is the use of force that is dangerous. Once you take away choices, people get angry — and sometimes violent — because a different lifestyle is being forced upon them.

When power solidifies in Washington D.C., there is a demonstrative erosion of freedom. When people feel freedom disappearing, they feel powerless. This brings out the worst in them. Having power in the states gives people freedom and choice. Not having a choice means not having freedom. Let me have a choice, and I will be perfectly content.

If we had fifty states — each truly experimenting with different political philosophies — I would not necessarily respect progressive voters in California or New York. Most importantly, New York politicians could not impose their political will on Iowans, or the reverse. There are few policies beyond those which protect our natural rights, which must or should be imposed nationally. We will not lose our nationhood with states dictating the speed limit, drinking age, minimum wage, healthcare policy and the like. When we need to be one nation, such as in time of war, soldiers from New York would still fight alongside soldiers from Iowa. They might not understand nor agree with each other’s politics, but there wouldn’t be any hatred because the guy from New York would not be imposing his will on the conservative from Iowa. It would be live and let live.

This, in short, is the new federalism — federalism 2.0. It is about experimentation with different policies in the states, and robust competition among them for citizens’ tax dollars. While it is not a panacea, it is what the founders envisioned. Rather than make America great again (again?), my goal is to make America America again.

]]>Beating Tribalism with FederalismWhere Is Everyone Going? (Redux)Cato InstituteFederalismTaxationBob ZadekFri, 26 Oct 2018 02:35:23 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/10/25/where-is-everyone-going-redux53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5bd27a23e79c708e3cff6c24Chris Edwards Grades States on Tax Policy and Examines the Exodus from
High-Tax to Low-Tax States

It’s often said that “money talks; BS walks,” but previous guests on my show have marshaled hard evidence that money walks, too. IRS data shows that it tends to walk from places with high taxes and poor quality governance to places with lower taxes and a better business climate.

Back in 2013, when I interviewed Travis Brown on his book How Money Walks, the caravan of Californians to lower-tax states had already begun. Hundreds of thousands of former residents of the Golden State have traded fools gold for silver — leaving for Nevada, not to mention Texas, Florida, and Oregon. This mass exodus of citizens is hitting California’s state budget especially hard, since our state relies on the income tax more than most.

Five years later, I thought it was time to revisit the subject with the Cato Institute’s director of tax policy studies, Chris Edwards, who has a new white paper out grading every state governor on fiscal performance. Governor Jerry Brown of California gets a “D.” I think this is generous, yet I still choose to live here. Perhaps my decision, and that of millions of others like me who have stuck around, explains why the government hasn’t been more responsive — yet.

Edwards also recently published an analysis of the recent Federal tax reform and its effects on interstate migration. One of the key findings is that tax competition among states has increased since the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The bill reduced overall income taxes and increased the standard deduction, but it also capped the state and local tax deduction at $10,000. This means that upper and middle class residents of states like California and New York feel a greater burden from the state income tax and have an even stronger incentive to join the outbound bandwagon.

Edwards also found that in 2016, even before the tax policy change, 600,000 people earning a total of $33 billion moved from states with above-average taxes to those with below average taxes. California had a net loss of over 25,000 households. In a state where the top 1 percent of earners pay 50 percent of state income taxes, all it takes is a handful of households to significantly reduce the budget.

The secret is out, as many news outlets have begun reporting on the “best states to move to for lower taxes.” Just as lower prices incentivize demand in a free market, lower taxes with the same quality of governmental services are spurring a competitive marketplace among states. May the best states win!

New Book Launches Monday!

Subscribe to weekly emails to get a free PDF copy of Bob’s new book, coming out on Monday, 10/29

I interviewed Chris for the full hour on Sunday 10/28 about his findings, and will also be introducing my new compilation of transcribed interviews on the closely related subject of “Federalism 2.0.” The book launched this weekend to commemorate the 231st anniversary of the publication of the first Federalist Paper. Sign up for my weekly liberty digest to receive transcripts of past shows, teasers of upcoming shows, and a free PDF of the first 3 chapters of my forthcoming book, Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Governable Again.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoFree Your Minds From Social Media CensorshipBay AreaCivil LibertiesCrony CapitalismInnovationBob ZadekThu, 18 Oct 2018 20:33:29 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/10/18/free-your-minds-from-social-media-censorship53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5bc8ed889140b7522406909cA New Blockchain-powered Social Network Hopes to Break Up Big Tech’s
Monopoly on SpeechDuring the 1990s, a collaboration between Silicon Valley and the U.S. intelligence community was begun under the name of the Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS). The project funded dozens of top computer science programs at elite universities with the goal of identifying patterns in large amounts of information to track crime and terrorism. However, its intended capabilities went beyond crime hunting. One of these grants went to a Stanford research team that would eventually turn into a for-profit search engine, Google, Inc., which now uses its algorithms to detect all kinds of patterns of human behavior. Whether these algorithms are being used today for good or evil is the subject of this show.

This lesser-known origin story of the Internet’s largest search and advertising platform points to disturbing level of cronyism that persists to this day. The latest debate over “Big Tech” relates to its increasing censorship of peaceful expression that challenges the prevailing liberal orthodoxy in the San Francisco Bay Area. As the host of Northern California’s only and longest running libertarian radio show, I am left wondering how much longer I’ll be able to use Facebook, Twitter, and the like.

Now there is news that Google is developing a version of its search engine called “Dragonfly” that would be compatible with China’s censorship policies. Are companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter private entities – themselves entitled to the protections of the First Amendment – or do they threaten the free expression of the rest of us because of their privileged position as government supported monopolies? Either way, I believe the time has come to move toward alternative platforms that do not censor any points of view.

Bill Ottman, a co-founder of open-source social network Minds.com, joins me to discuss the potential of platforms like Minds to resuscitate Internet free speech from the death grip of Big Tech. Minds.com censors nobody, but rather employs free market methods of regulating distasteful content. Ottman has noted that attempts to suppress “hate speech” tend to backfire — forcing fringe opinion to cluster in underground niches, where it festers and grows. Expose bad ideas to the light of day, however, and they wither and die.

Minds.com is free, open-source, and allows users to earn tokens that can be used to boost their content or be exchanged for other cryptocurrencies. The site uses blockchain technology to ensure that it remains decentralized, and to reward those who are most active in posting and engaging with content. You can follow our own page here, and while you’re at it, check out the Minds.com Bill of Rights:

1. Intermediaries should be shielded from liability for third-party content.

2. Content must NOT be required to be removed without an order by a judicial authority.

3. Requests for restrictions of content must be clear, be unambiguous, and follow due process.

4. Laws and content restriction orders and practices must comply with the tests of necessity and proportionality.

5. Laws and content restriction policies and practices must respect due process.

6. Transparency and accountability must be built into laws and content restriction policies and practices.

That’s a lot of freedom! Having this much liberty online means that each Minds.com user has to take a more active role in regulating their own feeds — making liberal use of the mute, block and unfollow features. If you like this post, and want to see more content like this, go to our page and give us an upvote.

Also, check out our related shows on the topic of the blockchain and freedom of speech below.

Links:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoEntrepreneurs, Outlaws, and the Right to Bear Arms – David Harsanyi on *First Freedom*AmendmentsAmerican RevolutionInnovationBob ZadekFri, 12 Oct 2018 17:47:08 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/10/12/entrepreneurs-outlaws-and-the-right-to-bare-arms-nbspdavid-harsanyi-on-first-freedom53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5bc0dcf9f4e1fc14884bd97fDavid Harsanyi’s new book *First Freedom* shows how gun rights have secured
individual liberty since the American Revolution (and earlier)As the old adage adage goes, “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” That may be literally true in places like Nazi Germany or communist regimes that have completely banned individuals from owning firearms, but in the U.S., most attempts to merely “control” gun ownership have resulted in far greater numbers of legal guns being purchased by the American public. Today there are more guns than people in the U.S.—by a lot—thanks in no small part by progressives’ efforts to restrict our Second Amendment rights.

David Harsanyi relays these counter-intuitively findings in his new book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun — a must read for anyone who wants to understand the heated debate around guns in America, and why the Founders considered the individual right to bear arms so important that they put it right after freedom of speech, religion, etc. in the Bill of Rights. In short, we need the Second Amendment to defend the First. The liberties in the First Amendment could not have been guaranteed were it not for American assertion of their right to gun ownership during and after the American Revolution.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a columnist at National Review, and author of four books. He joins me this Sunday to talk about the on-going importance of standing up for our Second Amendment rights, and how critics of gun rights most commonly miss the mark.

For the record, I have never owned a gun couldn’t tell you the difference between the butt and the blunderbuss. I get my libertarian bona fides as a card-carrying supporter of the Cato Institute and Reason Foundation — not the National Rifle Association. However, it warms my heart that many of my compatriots, both now and throughout history, have kept government tyranny at bay through their constant vigilance to keep original meaning of the 2nd Amendment intact.

Harsanyi argues that those who oppose an originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (securing an individual right to own guns) have a formidable challenge. First, they must fundamentally revise history, editing out the reliance of the colonists, pioneers, revolutionaries, on guns. Second, they must prove that the “well-regulated militia” clause is actually intended to enshrine a collective right to bear arms in unique cases that have long since become archaic.

Against this line of reasoning, Harsanyi provides ample evidence from the writings of the founders. Before penning the immortal words of the Second Amendment, James Madison wrote:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

This was not license to rebel — save against a government that no longer defends the rights of the people, and thus the nation. He shows how guns were used to end the institution of slavery, defend the world from totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia, and enable minorities to defend themselves against violent mobs.

Today, Progressives are the main enemies of the rights of self -defense— seeking less to ban guns than to “control” them through stringent background checks and other methods that could easily be politicized and used against innocent people placed on faulty “watchlists.” How long will it be before democrats push to place anyone with conservative opinions on their lists of “mental defectives”?

Listen now as we discuss the roots of the current gun control debate, and how it relates to the creeping threat of mob rule leading up to the 2018 mid-term elections.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoStephen Moore on TrumponomicsBig GovernmentFederalismLibertarianLocal GovernmentSupreme CourtBob ZadekSun, 07 Oct 2018 22:58:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/9/22/local-leviathan-clint-bolick-on-grassroots-tyranny-4544b53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5bb697b4eef1a1b994adc966SUN. 10/7: Can we grow our way out of debt?Early on in the Trump administration, the President tweeted, “I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.”

The free trade/fair trade distinction goes back to the 1980s, when then President Ronald Reagan’s free market advisers unsuccessfully plead with him to focus solely on the former. After all, they argued, free trade is fair trade. It’s fair to consumers and producers, while tariffs, quotas and other protectionist policies promote unfair business practices. Fair trade is usually just a euphemism for protecting uncompetitive domestic industries from foreign competition. Reagan understood this, but he also had the political savvy to signal loyalty to American companies, so the hybrid “free and fair trade” mantra stuck.

Stephen Moore, a former President of the Club for Growth and an economic advisor to President Trump, thinks we are seeing a repeat of the Reagan trade doctrine. While Trump may be threatening countries with draconian tariffs on their exports, Moore says that he is angling for “zero tariffs” behind the scenes. The tough talk is merely a bargaining tactic designed to get other countries, namely China, to reform their own protectionist economies in line with the free world.

We can hope that this is the case, but this and other questions remain about Trump’s actual commitment to free market policies. Also troubling is the seeming one-sided focus on tax cuts without any significant reductions in government spending. As Milton Friedman observed, “to spend is to tax” — if not now, then in the future. Basic economics dictates that expectations of future tax increases will eventually either depress consumer confidence, or translate into higher inflation.

Moore, whose free enterprise bonafides are second to none, has an answer to this as well. While there may not be such a thing as a “free lunch,” economically speaking, there have been situations in which reductions in tax rates have led to increases in overall revenue.

Arthur Laffer is credited with the idea of the “Laffer Curve,” showing the optimal rate of taxation that maximizes revenues — past a certain point, the disincentive from higher taxes starts to shrink the overall economic pie, and the government’s larger percentage ends up being a smaller total amount. Moore and Laffer have co-authored a new book titled Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy(available Oct. 30, 2018), which makes the case for “growing the pie” as the primary objective of economic policy.

While most economists said that 4% growth would be impossible after so many years of 0–2% growth under Obama, the recent data is proving otherwise. Moore co-founded the Committee to Unleash American Prosperity in 2015 with Laffer, Larry Kudlow, and Steve Forbes. They aimed to “persuade the presidential hopefuls in both parties to focus on the paramount challenge facing our country: slow growth and stagnant incomes.” Did the plan work? Perhaps, but it remains to be seen whether economic growth will be enough to pull the US out of debt (now standing at $21,606,948,383,546.28).

RELATED SHOWS:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoLocal Leviathan: Clint Bolick on Grassroots TyrannyBig GovernmentFederalismLibertarianLocal GovernmentSupreme CourtBob ZadekSat, 22 Sep 2018 16:33:11 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/9/22/local-leviathan-clint-bolick-on-grassroots-tyranny53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5ba66db1419202c9a85f5f6fSUN. 9/23: AZ Supreme Court Justice and IJ founder Clint Bolick on
Grassroots Tyranny & the Limits of Federalism.In designing the American Constitution, the Founding Fathers were careful to establish a balance of powers — not only among co-equal branches of federal government, but also among states, federal government, and the people themselves.

If the United States were a computer, then federalism would be its operating system. Extending the analogy, the most basic functions are performed by a “Central Governing Unit” (CGU) and strictly enumerated by Article I, Section VIII. The states were delegated the task of “programming” in the gaps — specialized “apps” to handle more localized issues. This design was supposed to serve as a bulwark against federal tyranny, although we’ve seen how the principles of federalism have been eroded by the commerce clause, and other broad powers usurped by federal government from the states.

On the flip side, states and local governments are not immune from the temptation to seize powers beyond their designated scope. The 10th amendment specifies that the powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. The founders were clear in their writings that the ultimate authority rests in individuals. Both conservatives and liberals have ignored individual sovereignty in promoting a bastardized version of federalism. Conservatives have often championed discriminatory legislation based on “states rights,” while contemporary liberals support the power of state and local governments to regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

Standing firm against this “local leviathan” are libertarians. The smallest minority on earth, Ayn Rand noted, is the individual. Sometimes the individual has to fight city hall all by himself, and the odds are stacked against him. Other times, however, groups like the Institute for Justice can take the government to court to defend their constitutional rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Before becoming an Arizona Supreme Court Justice, Hon. Clint Bolick co-founded the IJ, which has been featured many times on this show. Shortly after founding the IJ, Bolick authored a book titled Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism (Cato Institute Press). In it, he cautioned proponents of decentralization that localizing power is no guarantee that it won’t be abused. It’s not all about empowering states, Bolick says — both states and federal government are merely devices that ultimately derive their powers from their protection of individual liberty.

While states and local governments can still serve as “laboratories of democracy,” these laboratories must never be allowed to violate inalienable rights, lest federalism — the “bulwark” of liberty — turn loose a thousand experiments in governance gone wrong.

Tune in for the full discussion between Bob and Clint on Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoThe One Book You Must Read to Understand American Politics in 2018Crony CapitalismFoundersFree MarketImmigrationThomas JeffersonBob ZadekFri, 14 Sep 2018 17:45:53 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/9/14/the-one-book-you-must-read-to-understand-american-politics-in201853615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b9bf26d352f53c5a6b0217b*The Republican Workers Party* heralds the end of the left’s monopoly on
the inequality issue

According to F.H. Buckley — Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law and frequent guest on the show of ideas — the surprise result of the 2016 election was a product of political paradox. An establishment candidate of a counterrevolutionary and aristocratic “New Class” was defeated by a revolutionary capitalist offering a path to social mobility. Forget labels like conservative and liberal — the real divide in American politics is between this New Class of privileged elites and the rest of America. In short, it was all about economic opportunity and jobs for Americans. Donald Trump saw this, while Hillary Clinton and the Republican establishment did not.

Buckley, a Trump speechwriter and key transition advisor, introduced the idea of the New Class in his last book, The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What we Can Do About It(2017). He explained this class as an outgrowth of the Hamiltonian vision of American greatness, which defended hereditary aristocracy against the Jeffersonian ideal of a “natural aristocracy,” in which anyone with talent and motivation could become successful.

Thankfully, the Jeffersonian aristocracy has been the norm for much of U.S. history. American’s risk-loving attitude, combined with low taxes and regulation, has created the most economically-mobile nation ever. However, a creeping “administrative state” and growing risk aversion among professionals, academics, opinion leaders, and the politically-connected have replaced American dynamism with an entrenched economic elite shielded from competition.

Buckley’s latest book, The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed(Encounter Books, 2018), takes up where his last book left off — discussing the implications of the growing gulf between the average voter and the New Class. He argues that conservatives and libertarians should embrace a truth about inequality championed (poorly) by modern liberals and socialists like Bernie Sanders. The book is about how Trump bulldozed the tone-deaf republican establishment and created a new movement that he called the Republican Workers Party:

Frank joined Bob on Sunday (9/16) with his inside view on what “Make America Great Again” means. This includes a defense of nationalism rooted in a sense of fraternity with all fellow Americans. Whether you are riding the Trump train, remain a steadfast NeverTrumper, or are waiting to see what the President does next, The Republican Workers Party is required reading (or listening) for any student of politics. Sign up for weekly emails to get early access to the transcript when it is available.

Pre-empting a charge of hypocrisy, Professor Buckley is forthright in admitting to being a member of the New Class. However, he is not looking to defend his economic and social privilege. This privilege, he says, stems from a regulatory briar patch too thick for small businesses to navigate, a broken educational system that keeps the lower class trapped in poverty, and an immigration system that blocks out high-skilled competitors while allowing large influxes of low-skilled labor to undercut middle-class wages.

Some libertarians will find the book difficult to read. Buckley marshals survey data indicating that the political “sweet spot” in 2018 America is not socially liberal and economically conservative, but rather moderately socially conservative and economically liberal with respect to a social safety net. For example, Social Security and Medicare remain some of the most popular government programs on the book. In other words, we’re not all libertarians now.

The silver lining is that Trump’s vision of a workers party includes slashing regulations by as much as 70 percent, nominating judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia, and introducing greater choice and competition into our school system.

On trade, Trump looks particularly bad to libertarians. Buckley admits that Trump’s tariffs, and the worst-case scenario of a trade war with China, harm American workers. We can pray for the removal of Trump’s protectionist economic advisor Peter Navarro, who is the “source of all chaos” in the White House according to Bob Woodward’s new book, Fear.

Finally, Trump’s goal of immigration reform is often viewed as bigoted — a return to nationalism that offends those with New Class cosmopolitan sensibilities. Here, Professor Buckley’s Canadian-America citizenship gives him a particularly nuanced perspective. In short, he advocates something closer to the Canadian system of merit-based immigration. Carefully distinguishing between a healthy nationalism and unhealthy populism, he goes on to explain that solidarity with one’s fellow Americans can never be racist, given our diverse citizenry.

“National governments can demand too much and turn oppressive. So too can families. But that’s not an argument against the affection one naturally feels for one’s nation or one’s family.”

— Frank Buckley, *The Republican Workers Party*

While warning against the dangers of both excessive and ethnic nationalism, Buckley takes a bold stand for American cultural nationalism, which is ultimately a liberal nationalism. The Democrats, he says, have lost their commitment to the liberalism of the Founding fathers, which has always been about economic opportunity for all who are willing to work for it.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoJonathan Haidt on *The Coddling of the American Mind*EducationThomas JeffersonBob ZadekSat, 08 Sep 2018 15:57:19 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/9/8/jonathan-haidt-on-the-coddling-of-the-americanmind53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b93ef6003ce64eefd12b4b8A psychology professor diagnoses the unhealthy mentality brewing on
America's college campuses“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” — Thomas Jefferson, upon founding the University of Virginia.

A new vernacular has emerged on college campuses over the past several years — safe spaces, “microaggressions,” triggers warnings and so on. While conservatives may find these terms easy to mock, and many dismiss them as the grievances of a few spoiled children, professors from across the political spectrum have voiced concerns about a pathological victimhood mentality that underlies their usage.

The first sign that things were getting bad was a 2015 article published in Vox titled, “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me.” Next was the Halloween brouhaha at Yale, in which a professor was shouted down by a student mob after defending his wife’s email to the student body urging them to be less sensitive about costumes that “appropriate” the markers of certain cultures. Later came the mobs — often violent — calling for heads of figures like Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, and Milo Yiannopoulis for voicing controversial opinions.

It doesn’t take a sophisticated analyst to see that wearing a sombrero on Halloween is not comparable to physical violence. However, much of the criticism of the “special snowflakes” by the right has only thrown more fuel on the fire. It has created a vicious cycle, whereby the anti-free speech left sees the inflammatory language as further proof that certain voices must not be heard. Once that point is granted, it’s easy to continually shrink the boundaries of acceptable speech. While there are some who may wish to inflict emotional pain on over-sensitive college students, the vast majority of professors and guest speakers who have been silenced have had good intentions — namely to share their knowledge and opinions in an environment where the ideas can be challenged and discussed in the open.

NYU psychology professor Jonathan Haidt has attempted to give a platform for all truth-seekers with his Heterodox Academy — a group of academics dedicated to increasing “viewpoint diversity.” The platform functions as something of a “safe space” amid the increasing hostility to free exchange of ideas on campus. Haidt’s latest book The Coddling of the American Mind(co-authored with Greg Lukianoff of The FIRE)goes beyond the mockery and intentionally inflammatory speech directed at the small subset of college students who are most visibly outraged by political incorrectness. He applies principles of psychology to understand what drives the urge to suppress free speech and shows how this is precisely the wrong way for triggered young adults to handle their anxiety.

Equal parts pro-liberal philosophy and behavioral therapy, Haidt and Lukianoff’s book lays out the paradox of anxiety, and how our efforts to shield ourselves from negative ideas and emotions makes us less able to cope with them. They say that blame-seeking, or “vindictive protectiveness,” re-labels well-intentioned people as “aggressors,” and is having a disastrous effect on people’s mental health. They back it up with data, too, showing how the "iGeneration" now entering their college years is seeing skyrocketing rates of severe anxiety as a result of having been shielded by adults from real life.

A New York Times review of the book wonders if our cultural obsession with safety could spell the “Downfall of Democracy.” With stakes this high, we need more thinkers like Haidt — and more conversations that bring hard questions and ugly truths to the surface where they can be debated, studied, and understood by the next generation of politicians, professionals, and thought leaders.

JJonathan Haidt joined the show of ideas - not attitude - on Sunday (9/9) from 8–9am PACIFIC. He and Bob analyzed how well our top schools stack up to the Jeffersonian conception of the university as a place to fearlessly pursue the truth, and talk about how students can better prepare themselves mentally in this important quest.Share the link with any students beginning their freshman year, or continuing in their education at a school where these issues are being worked out in real-time.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoThe Curious Case of the $32,000 Couch DemocracySupreme CourtBob ZadekMon, 03 Sep 2018 01:57:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/8/30/the-curious-case-of-the-32000couch53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b889c15898583866a4e84d6The entire Supreme Court of West Virginia was just impeached. What does it
mean for the future of judicial selection?

Six years later, he was elected by the people of West Virginia as a justice on the same court, and on January 1, 2017, he became Chief Justice.

On June 20, 2018, Loughry was impeached by the West Virginia House for mind-boggling corruption of his own. Today, he is “living history” — facing impeachment and up to 390 years in prison.

However, this was only the beginning of the truly continuing history of political corruption in West Virginia’s Supreme Court. What began with a revelation of Loughry’s excessive spending on an office remodel — including the purchase of a $32,000 couch — implicated all five of the standing members of the Mountain State’s highest court. Now, three of them face impeachment trials, while the other two resigned to avoid the ugly proceedings into their potentially criminal “maladministration.”

The majority of the charges revolve around lavish spending on their offices — partly a product of the lack of oversight on judicial budgets in West Virginia. Laurie Lin (@WVPundette), a columnist for West Virginia’s Charleston Gazette-Mail and former attorney, has been following the story carefully. Earlier this month, she recapped the depressing yet almost comical saga in a teleforum hosted by The Federalist Society, and fielded questions on the political implications of such a blatant abuse of power.

It’s easy to blame judicial elections for such widespread corruption. We know that voters are largely ignorant. Furthermore, elections could create incentives for judges to favor those who give to their campaigns. But in this case, the maladministration seems to have simply come from a unique culture of corruption within the courthouse — specifically around office expenditures. In addition to the infamous $32,000 sofa, one justice had renovated her office with a tacky Egyptian theme, meaning that her successor had to spend significant sums just to restore it to something normal. This quickly snowballed into a culture of personalizing offices to an absurd degree.

Now, Governor Jim Justice is replacing the justices who resigned with temporary appointees — both from his own party (Republican) — and Democrats in the House are calling foul play. While this story may seem beyond odd to outsiders of West Virginia politics, it comes as little surprise to the state’s residents. Wikipedia provides some helpful pretext for West Virginia’s political bizarro world:

“In 2015, Justice switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party and announced his candidacy for Governor in the 2016 election. He ran as a Democrat and defeated the Republican nominee, Bill Cole. Less than seven months after taking office, Justice switched back to the Republican Party the day after announcing his plans at a PresidentTrump rally in the state.”

Soon enough, the voters of West Virginia will have a chance to elect new judges to the two to five vacant seats that will be left in the wake of the judicial crisis. They’ve already repealed the part of the constitution that enables the judiciary to get away with unaccountable spending on couches, Egyptian-themed offices, and the like. But a broader debate remains over the merits of electing judges versus appointing them, under a system sometimes known as merit selection.

Laurie Lin joined the show to break down this amusing true tale of corruption, treachery, and political intrigue.

Just a few weeks ago, the media was fawning over Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and her youthful makeover of tired socialist ideas. Not to be outdone, Elizabeth Warren penned an essay in the Wall Street Journal introducing a modest proposal to completely remake capitalism as we know it. Her Accountable Capitalism Act would create an “Office of United States Corporations inside the Department of Commerce,” requiring any corporation with revenue over $1 billion to obtain a federal charter. These charters would force businesses to vest decision-making authority in a variety of “stakeholders” that would include the company’s workers and other vaguely-defined groups in the communities affected by the company.

It would seem like old-fashioned socialism hasn’t gone completely out of style if Matt Yglesias’ fawning coverage at Vox is any indicator of this kind of plan’s popularity with left-leaning Americans.

Yglesias writes:

“As much as Warren’s proposal is about ending inequality, it’s also about saving capitalism.”

Putting aside the fact that Warren is likely using this to position herself as the hard-left favorite for the 2020 presidential election, it’s worth examining what such a policy would actually mean for businesses and working people in the United States. A full analysis would require both a legal scholar and an economist. Fortunately, Professor Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution and NYU’s School of Law joined The Bob Zadek Showto explain how Elizabeth Warren’s Surreptitious Socialism threatens the foundations of our (mostly) free economy.

The most sinister aspect of Warren’s proposal is its surface appeal. Giving workers and community members a greater share alongside shareholders and the board of directors seems like a nice way to orient a corporation around goals nobler than a mere profit motive. But as Epstein points out, the way the bill is defined, anyone could claim to be a stakeholder — even a firm’s competitors. Take away the forces of free competition and you kill the engine of prosperity.

That’s far from the only problem. In a global economy, where corporations have a choice of where to do business, such a law would send capital fleeing to other countries to avoid the burdensome compliance costs, which would predominantly be driven by political rather than social or economic concerns.

As Milton Friedman explained decades ago, the profit-motive harnessed within a functioning legal system is all that’s required for both the individual and collective good to be maximized. Warren’s plan to “save” capitalism would conveniently align corporate interests with her own political interests. While she may not wish to turn the U.S. into North Korea overnight, it’s a slippery slope from her Accountable Capitalism Act to full-blown socialism.

For a full discussion of the long list of errors and economic fallacies Warren makes in her piece, tune into the show of ideas — not attitude.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoA Libertarian Vision of #aNewNYCivil LibertiesEntrepreneurshipLibertarianPolitical PartiesBob ZadekThu, 16 Aug 2018 00:16:04 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/8/15/a-libertarian-vision-ofanewny53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b74c2492b6a285a8403894fLarry Sharpe is Giving “King Cuomo” a Run for His Money in the 2018
Gubernatorial Race.Few people outside of libertarian economists have heard of Albert O. Hirschman, but he is perhaps one of the most important political theorists of the 20th century. His book, Exit, Voice and Loyalty, has spawned whole intellectual circles and even an annual event in Austin, Texas – the “Voice and Exit” conference. The underlying concept is simple. There are three ways consumers can respond to a decline in the quality of goods (including governance):

They can spend their dollars elsewhere or “vote with their feet” and leave the area. This is Exit.

They can speak up — writing letters, picking up the phone, standing in the picket line, and last but not least, voting at the ballot box. This is Voice.

They can stick around, hoping that things will improve. This is Loyalty.

A large swath of New Yorkers will predictably choose option 3 this November, sticking with the tried and failed policies of Governor Andrew Cuomo, simply because he has the endorsement of the Democratic party. The crowded field of candidates includes the virtually unknown Republican Marc Molinaro, as well as Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon, who is trying to outflank the incumbent from the left. Molinaro is polling at a pitiful 23%, and is widely considered a “sacrificial lamb” of the GOP. This would bode well for Cuomo, except that Lambert threatens to siphon off votes if she takes her candidacy to a third party, leaving a vulnerability that a rising libertarian star may take advantage of.

Larry Sharpe has a message for the caravan of ex-New Yorkers heading to Florida and elsewhere in escape of high taxes, bad schools, and a broken legal system. There is another option besides “Exit” and “Loyalty.” Sharpe is giving millions of New Yorkers a voice that many of them previously never knew they had. It is the principled voice of liberty, rejecting tribal allegiance to the two parties in favor of a practical live and let live ethos.

“[A] libertarian is someone who says you can be as liberal or as conservative as you want to be; just don’t force others to be like you.”

— Larry Sharpe, Libertarian candidate for Governor of New York

Sharpe narrowly lost the Vice Presidential slot to former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld in 2016, but even then, Weld acknowledged that the future of the Libertarian Party lay in the hands of people like him. Sharpe is a successful businessman and Marine Corps veteran. He issued a stern warning to the entrenched interests in New York City, like the unionized MTA subway workers, who earn 5 times the prevailing wage at the expense of taxpayers. Sharpe knows how to negotiate, and will not be bullied by the threat of a subway strike.

This shakedown is funding Cuomo’s campaign. The MTA’s union brags that Cuomo is “their candidate,” and their political gifts are keeping him in the lead — for now.

In an interview with Reason’s Nick Gillespie, Sharpe confessed that just a few months ago, he did not feel the race was winnable. Today, however, with the crowded field and his strong fundraising efforts, Sharpe has a fighting chance at pulling one of the greatest political upsets of all time.

Even if he garners 10% of the vote in the deep Blue state, Sharpe can have a sizable impact on the state’s politics by putting pressure on Republicans to stick with limited government, and on Democrats to lead on civil liberties. Already, Sharpe is introducing thousands — if not hundreds of thousands — of voters to an unwatered-down version of libertarian philosophy, based on the non-aggression principle.

Where principled philosophy meets practical policy

“My north star is a totally voluntary society. But to be forward with you, our nation is nowhere near there.”

Sharpe’s governing philosophy is a blend of libertarian principle and business experience. He compares reforming the system to peeling off bandaids on top of bandaids — sometimes, removing a particular government “solution” makes things worse, forcing politicians to be strategic about which battles they pick. He is focused on winning single-issue voters with clear-cut libertarian positions. That’s why he’s picking a fight with unionized public transportation workers, and campaigning on a platform of school choice, gun rights, and affordable health care delivered by a free market.

Gun control laws, like the NY SAFE Act, make felons out of normal Americans who possess firearms or accessories that have legitimate hunting and self-defense uses. Sharpe wants to end this and other laws that punish people for victimless crimes. Although the libertarian party may seem broken, he is choosing loyalty to the platform in order to give voice to the victims of a bloated government and its draconian penal system.

This election will be a perfect test ground for Bob’s theory that most people are actually libertarians — they just don’t know it yet.

How You Can Help

Among who have heard of him and know his positions, Sharpe is polling phenomenally well. In other words, New Yorkers really do just want to live and let live — they just don’t realize that there’s a viable candidate suggesting that kind of change. Aside from listening to the show and sharing the listen live link, you can support Larry’s campaign by giving a donation in either dollars or crypto-currency.

To get the word out about his candidacy, Larry needs people to spread his vision for #aNewNY on Twitter, and Tell @NYGovCuomo to #debateLarry.

Libertarians have been stalwart opponents of the War on Drugs since its inception — a position which has brought them ridicule and scorn until relatively recently, when the tide of popular opinion began to shift. Now, we see grassroots support for dozens of reforms across the states. However, the Federal Government clings to prohibition and refuses to admit that it has always been losing the war, and is now losing public approval.

Are people waking up to the principle of self-ownership, or is the change based on a simple recognition that the War on Drugs has failed? It costs too much to enforce and generally harms the very people it is intended to help.

Meanwhile, another War on Drugs receives less attention in the media, but the consequences and futility are no less grave. While Drug Enforcement Agency raids may ruin lives with spectacular flair and speed, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) system of tight regulatory controls on pharmaceuticals is a silent killer.

Jessica Flanigan is a professor in the University of Richmond’s Jepson School of Leadership Studies who specializes in ethics. She says that restrictions on pharmaceuticals are some of the most unethical laws on the books. Her 2017 book, Pharmaceutical Freedom: Why Patients Have a Right to Self-Medicate, is a groundbreaking philosophical treatise against drug prohibition— just not the kind you're used to hearing about.

Flanigan argues that the medical profession and its regulators have limited people’s access to life-saving and life-enhancing drugs without any valid justification for doing so. The FDA’s defenders would point to the complicated risks of medication as justification, i.e., people don’t understand their decisions. To this, Flanigan says that we allow people to make complicated risky decisions all the time — think marrying another person, or buying a car. Somehow, despite having no expertise in automobiles or interpersonal psychology, people manage to make informed decisions with knowledge of their personal preferences and the help of the marketplace, and the world goes ‘round.

While she makes some exceptions allowing safeguards for children and incompetent adults, Flanigan says that the logic behind her radical proposal is no different from that underlying the laws of informed consent. Informed consent, which became binding on physicians in the 1970s, holds that information about a diagnosis or treatment cannot be withheld from a patient–even when the doctor thinks they are acting in the best interest of a patient. As the American Medical Association puts it, “Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care.”

Against Hippocrates

Where did doctors and regulators get the idea that the people need benevolent experts to make decisions regarding the most intimate areas of their life in the first place? Look no further than the Hippocratic Oath of the 5th century BC:

“Conceal most things from the patient… Give necessary orders with cheerfulness and serenity… revealing nothing of the patient’s future or present condition.”

One would hope that the shift to informed consent heralds a broader change in public opinion that recognizes the inherent value of autonomy. Flanigan backs up her case for pharmaceutical freedom with a mixture of deontological and consequentialist arguments. That means she finds reasons to end the clampdown on pharmaceuticals based on both inherent bodily rights — namely self-ownership — and on the good effects or consequences that flow from such a policy. While some die-hard libertarians might still support the “right to try” an experimental treatment that is simply poison, most see that the real world has numerous alternatives to government regulation that can guide patients to make better decisions.

Jessica Flanigan joined the show (8/12) to dispel common fears around deregulating pharmaceuticals — from Thalidomide babies to designer drugs that would give their users unfair advantages. Tune in live and call in with your questions: (424) BOB-SHOW

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoHow to Spot Tabloid Climate ScienceEnvironmentalismBob ZadekFri, 03 Aug 2018 14:38:40 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/8/3/how-to-spot-tabloid-climate-science53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b6465061ae6cfd495f49a72H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute on the Corruption of Science
and the Changing Tide in Environmental Policy. Read More…Northern California is burning, and climate alarmists — including California Governor Jerry Brown — are blaming carbons emissions. It’s unclear when or how Governor Brown became a climate expert, but he claims the Carr fire is evidence of the climate changing in real time.

The Independent, a British tabloid, also cites generic experts who say the fires will only get worse over time because of climate change.

Never mind that most forest fires are started on poorly managed land owned by the federal government, or that science has not established a cause-and-effect relationship between fires and carbon dioxide emissions, these experts will tell you with certainty that man-made global warming is the problem. For years, the U.S. Forest Service has wanted to increase logging to reduce fuel loads of overgrown forests — filled with dead and diseased trees — but they have been blocked by environmentalists. The Endangered Species Act has often been the reason for allowing forests to turn into tinderboxes. However, endangered species are less compelling villains than big oil companies, so don’t expect Governor Brown to blame the spotted owl anytime soon.

Just who are these climate experts the media is always citing, and should we trust them? Some may recall Dwight D. Eisenhower’s prophetic outgoing address to Congress in which he warned of a coming military-industrial complex, but few realize that modern climate science is driven by the same revolving door Eisenhower feared. As government monopolizes science, it gets to call the shots. Today, the environmental movement has co-opted and corrupted science in an unholy alliance with the regulatory state. Only a handful of nonprofits and scientists have had the courage to stand against it.

The Heartland Institute, based in Illinois, is one such group. They have been educating the public and producing freely available literature that shows how “the climate consensus” can be debunked using mainstream data and studies. H. Sterling Burnett, a Heartland senior fellow on environmental policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News, joins the show to give a lesson on spotting environmental fake news.

What’s more, climate models over-estimated the warming trend in 97.4% of their predictions between 1998 and 2014. Rest assured, their models must be getting better — it’s hard to imagine them getting much worse.

Follow the Money

For all of their efforts to clear the air and promote rational environmental science and energy regulations, the Heartland Institute has been subject to false accusation and smear tactics from left-leaning and environmental blogs. The common complaints that they are in the pockets of big oil, however, don’t stand up to scrutiny. Exxon’s short-lived donations to the Institute never exceeded 5% of the budget. Rather, Exxon has been much more active in its giving to environmental causes that are trying to stamp out its competitors in the coal industry, which is often the cheapest and most efficient form of energy available to the developing world.

The real bias in climate science is spurred by government funding of alarmist research . It’s gone unnoticed because we’ve grown accustomed to cronyism as the status quo. Carl Jung wrote, “It’s hard to see the lion that has eaten you.” Yet the tendency of government to fund studies confirming the looming ecological apocalypse is well-established, and is summed up eloquently by MIT Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, Richard Lindzen.

This corruption of environmental science has many beneficiaries — from the bureaucracies that boost their budget when a frightened public votes for increased taxes and regulations, to renewable energy insiders that only find a viable market for their products in a subsidized environment. The end result is a bootleggers-and-baptist coalition between sincere-but-misinformed activists, corporate interests in the monopolistic energy industry, and the politicians that make the great theft possible.

As usual, the Professor dispelled the faulty legal arguments behind the plaintiffs in both written and oral form.

He concludes that private lawsuits cannot deliver remedies for ill-defined damages, especially when only a fraction of those hypothetical damages could be said to be caused by the named defendants (in this case, Exxon, Chevron, etc.). Putting aside the fact that these oil companies are only responsible for a small percentage of total energy production, and that the oil companies themselves are not emitting (this responsibility falls on us — the consumers), Epstein notes that fossil fuels are the only option for keeping transportation, manufacturing, and commerce alive. As Milton Friedman once said, “Energy is the lifeblood of a market economy.”

Other Green Shoots

Elsewhere, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the government’s current policy of leasing land to coal companies without having to a review of the impact of coal on climate. While the Obama administration put a moratorium on coal extraction, the Trump administration has been pushing an agenda of “energy dominance.” The EPA already applies an environmental impact analysis — the ruling simply prevented a new layer of red tape. Taking away coal forces power companies to switch to less reliable, more expensive alternatives, including wind and solar configurations that are often built at great expense to the environment — destroying habitats and requiring ample energy to build and maintain.

You won’t read about any of this in the papers. Mainstream media bias positions government and environmentalists as the saviors from evil corporations and energy companies. It’s a simple story that sells magazines and keeps people on the edge of their seats. There’s just one problem. It’s not true.

While the Trump administration has rolled back a number of the worst regulations, the corruption of science persists. For every Richard Epstein, Richard Lindzen, H. Sterling Burnett, and Matt Ridley, there are scores of scientists on university payrolls that remain locked into the group-think that reinforces the problem.

In 2015, The Heartland Institute began distributing 300,000 free copies of a booklet titled, “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.” As expected, it evoked much ire, but the message is getting out there. The majority of the public doesn’t blame capitalism for climate change, nor do they rank it as a major concern compared to other problems.

Once one steps outside of the government–media–academic echo chamber, the talk of international accords and the need for global governance start to sound ridiculous. Don’t get fooled.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoHow Bail Traps the Poor in Jail with Scott ShackfordAmendmentsCivil LibertiesBob ZadekFri, 27 Jul 2018 18:27:43 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/7/27/how-bail-traps-the-poor-in-jail-with-scott-shackford53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b5b58c903ce64859385c8e8There’s no easy fix for a broken bail system, says Reason Magazine’s Scott
Shackford, but we must try.The August/September 2018 Reason Magazine cover story features an issue of bi-partisan interest — the injustice of the cash bail system, which coerces poor defendants into guilty pleas. For those who can pay, bail means avoiding jail before they even get a trial. For those who can’t pay, it often means lost jobs, and mega-hassles, even if they end up being found innocent. Does this represent a violation of the great American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty?

In the essay, author Scott Shackford details several sad and often infuriating stories of people who clearly pose no threat to society being held on exorbitant bail charges. While it’s understandable that we would lock up a murder suspect with a criminal record awaiting trial, the whole point of the bail system is to allow those who are wrongly convicted or generally law-abiding citizens to serve only the time they are formally sentenced to — not a pretrial jail term that can sometimes be as long as the actual sentence.

Around half a million Americans are sitting behind bars who have yet to be convicted of a crime, writes Shackford. This issue has brought together some strange bedfellows, including Senators Rand Paul with Kamala Harris (co-sponsors of the Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act), as well as Google’s charitable arm with the Koch Foundation. Most recently, Bernie Sanders introduced the No Money Bail Act, but like Harris and Rand’s attempt, the bill is unlikely to pass through committee.

While Federal reform has stalled, Shackford takes note of a handful of state experiments with reforms that are making the system less biased against those who can’t afford bail. These efforts include eliminating cash bail, and encouraging judges to find alternatives to putting people in jail before their trials.

Some blame the $2 billion bail bonds industry for the lack of reform to date. Google even began blocking their ads on its search platform. This approach, however, may be flawed. Bail bonds, after all, are a legal service, and one that helps the system to function at that. As Marginal Revolution blogger Alex Tabarrok notes, “preventing advertising doesn’t reduce the need to pay bail, it simply makes it harder to find a lender.” Furthermore, taking away the option of judges to detain people who can’t afford bail has in some cases led them to merely put revoke that option altogether and hold them without bail.

Shackford joins the show of ideas, not attitude, to tackle a difficult but important topic of the American justice system. He and Bob will discuss the constitutionality of bail, and why the founders considered it important enough to limit “excessive bail” directly in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Pick up a copy of Shackford’s article on newsstands, and tune in for the full hourfor your weekly dose of libertarian ideas.

Past Shows:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoCalifornia Discovers FederalismBob ZadekFri, 20 Jul 2018 16:17:35 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/7/20/california-discovers-federalism53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b520851758d46fa2e2867e6A Conservative Principle is Being Hearkened to Defend Undocumented
Immigrants in the Golden State.It’s been called “federalism 2.0” — a move by states to buck the central government and try out their own policies in areas of the environment, immigration, drug policy, and criminal justice reform. California (for better or for worse) has been leading the charge on climate change issues, setting the pace for national vehicle emissions standards with its own stricter standards. But more recently, states have been particularly innovative on immigration, given the host of problems that stem from the Federal government’s failure to implement a comprehensive solution.

Joe Mathews, a syndicated columnist and California editor for Zocalo Public Square, came up with a unique legal proposal during the debate over Deferred Action (read: deportation) for Childhood Arrivals: an alternative “California resident” status. While not quite U.S. citizenship (which California can’t grant), residency would be a step towards integration for immigrant children, raised in California, whose national identity and true citizenship differ. Maybe, Mathews suggests, the best way to resolve the discrepancy is to make “Californian” into something more like a nationality — a legal relationship between non-citizen residents and state government. This would imply greater sovereignty for California and, in turn, for other states seeking to reclaim powers delegated to them by the 10th Amendment. Mathew specifically evoked the idea of federalism — referring to it as a “great American tradition” — much as Bob has been doing on this show for the past 10 years.

Is it Legal?

While the Constitution gives the Federal government jurisdiction over enforcing national immigration standards, there is no explicit prohibition on states taking action. As David Davenport of the Hoover Institution notes:

“Federalism incorporates the idea that the federal government is not the only player in our constitutional republic, because state and local governments also serve important roles. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution specifically reminds us that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.

With Republicans in charge of the White House, both houses of Congress and arguably the Supreme Court, Democrats are rediscovering states’ rights and local government powers, as the out-of-power party in Washington often does. And as usual, California is leading the way in flexing state and local power, notably:

On immigration — The nearly 20 sanctuary cities and counties in California refuse to support the enforcement of Washington’s immigration laws, charting their own course at the risk of some federal funding.”

Mathews joined the show to unpack his proposal, and explain how it would work. He and Bob discussed the broader failures of our immigration system, and work through the logistics of a more federalist approach if the Golden State were to lead the way.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoCan California's Endangered Species Survive U.S. Fish & Wildlife Policy?EnvironmentalismBob ZadekFri, 13 Jul 2018 15:09:28 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/7/13/can-californias-endangered-species-survive-us-fish-wildlife-policy53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b47e04ff950b7329fba7ca1The Delta smelt is going extinct. The adorable translucent fish don’t grow
much larger than a finger, but their privileged status as an endangered
species puts them at the center of a huge debate over federalism.

When the population of a tiny fish called the Delta smelt started to dwindle, U.S. Fish & Wildlife kicked into high gear to save them from going to extinct. They used their authority to divert federal water from the smelt’s habitat in California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta — away from farming and other habitats in the San Joaquin Valley. Endangered species have no way to communicate to the regulators charged with keeping them alive, but if they could, they might echo Ronald Reagan in saying:

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

The more fresh water retained in the Delta region, the thinking went, the more smelt there would be. Unfortunately, “preserving” freshwater (and essentially flushing it into the ocean) seems to have done nothing to revive smelt stocks. They are still dying. Making matters worse,other endangered species in the Valley are now being deprived of water from the San Joaquin.

Tony Francois is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation— a public interest law firm that litigates on behalf of vulnerable individuals and small businesses whose rights are threatened by overreaching legislative and executive power. Francois notes that property owners (farmers, etc.) are not the only ones with a stake in this issue, but also people who value biodiversity and sanity in government. He frames this as a moral issue, with the regulators to blame. However, he also puts some responsibility on citizens of various stripes to assert our power against an unaccountable agency run amok.

Tony joins the show to explain the disastrous unintended consequences of federal bureaucratic management of state resources and discuss other pending Supreme Court cases in which endangered species regulations are threatening people’s liberties (and often the environment). Finally, Bob and Tony discuss Trump’s new Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and his track record on cases involving the environment.

The two-faced Roman god Janus was said to look over the beginning and end of conflicts — one face looked rearward, to the past, while the other looked ahead to the future. With the end of the Supreme Court’s latest session and looming end to moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s career, we may be witnessing the beginning of a new era of jurisprudence.

Two years ago, the court decided not to hear the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, suspending the conflict between public sector unions and their opponents in the “right work” camp. Rebecca Friedrichs was a school teacher who resented paying dues, or even the less substantial non-member “agency fees” to her union. As a major political faction, public sector unions often push legislation in the interest of their members, such as increased funding for public school teachers’ salaries. Friedrichs, however, was not a typical union member. A rare anti-teacher’s union teacher, Friedrichs was recruited as an ideal plaintiff to go to court on behalf of the entire “right to work” movement — largely funded by conservative and libertarian interest groups — to argue that her free speech rights were being violated by the requirement to contribute financially to her union.

Many thought that the Friedrichs case was doomed when Justice Scalia suddenly passed away in 2016, until Trump’s election ushered in Neil Gorsuch’s nomination. The issue of public sector union dues returned to the docket in the case of Janus v. AFSCME. While the details were different, the essentials of the case was the same: do forced dues to a union constitute a violation of the First Amendment, as an instance of “compelled speech?”

A Precedent Overturned

Janus, a child protection specialist, contested the fees his union required him to pay. Since unions often function as a wing of the Democratic party, this seems like a reasonable complaint for public sector workers who broadly oppose the Democrats’ agenda. Indeed the court had found in a previous case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1970), which determined that dues collected from non-members were constitutional as long as they were only used for the union’s purposes of collective bargaining — separated from political activism funded by member dues.

Allowing employees to opt out of union fees entirely, however, creates a “free rider” problem, in which the non-members receive the benefits of the union’s negotiations at the expense of members. Thus, the decision in Janus — in favor of the plaintiff’s right to not pay any fees — deals a hard blow to public sector unions — one of the last organized supporting wings of the Democratic Party.

To understand why the case was so charged, one needs to understand the shifting political landscape — specifically, the shrinking power of unions as a check on business interests. Certain subgroups of the GOP have made it their goal to “defund and defang” public sector unions — the last bastion of organized labor — so that a free market agenda can advance with less opposition. As union membership has declined, we have seen a nearly inverted relationship with the share of income going to the top 10%. Whether the relationship is causal is hard to say, but the graphical evidence is compelling.

Subscribe to Jonathan’s podcast for a progressive perspective on issues related to organized labor and inequality.

Jonathan Tasini, host of the progressive “Working Life” podcast, sees this outcome as the result of a highly effective coalition of right-wing interest groups — including the Koch Foundation and the Uihlein Foundation — and the network of think tanks and organizations they support. Tasini links the decline in union influence over politics with the rise in inequality, and expects the Janus decision to further erode the fabric of working-class America.

However, it is not only progressives using partisan arguments for unions who are arguing against the 5–4 majority in Janus.

Was the Court Wrong?

Eugene Volokh, a noted libertarian legal scholar and lead blogger at Reason.com’s The Volokh Conspiracy, co-authored an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief in support of a government union’s constitutional right to levy fees.In her dissent, Justice Kagan quotes Volokh’s brief, which offers “many examples to show that the First Amendment ‘simply do[es] not guarantee that one’s hard-earned dollars will never be spent on speech one disapproves of.’”

For example, when the government taxes, it often spends the money on campaigns to promote the ideology behind a given program. In a simpler case, government grants often fund causes and forms of expression that many taxpayers do not value. Kagan and Volokh suggest that we might as well think of the fee as a tax on government workers to pay for the collective bargaining that they must undertake with the union to determine fair pay and benefits.

This ultimately led Volokh to conclude, in the wake of the decision, that the new precedent won’t change much. After all, the government can just change its method of levying the fee to a tax — leaving union revenues unchanged.

Nonetheless, the Janus decision does seem to tilt the balance a bit further away from unions, which is why many libertarians are celebrating.

Bob has covered this topic several times in the past, including (most recently) his interview with Rebecca Friedrichs and her attorney. Now you can hear the other side of the debate from Jonathan Tasini.

Ever since Francis Bacon’s The New Atlantis, men have dreamed of using science to advance empirical knowledge and bring relief to the human condition. But in the area of law and governance in particular, some countries have tried to apply rational principles (i.e., Marx’s supposedly scientific laws of history) with disastrous consequences. The common law tradition — with its protections of private property and individual liberty, plus stable rule of law — has proved the best system so far, despite being an emergent, system rather than the creation of an all-wise leader or bureaucracy.

Ironically, the countries that have tried the hardest to engineer social outcomes are now implementing special zones where more organically-evolved legal systems are the law of the land. China’s SEZs — free trade zones modeled on western governance — are credited with bringing close to a billion people out of poverty. This economic miracle has spawned copy-cat experiments around the world, but they are not necessarily the end-all-be-all of good governance. Newer concepts like charter cities, technological zones, and startup cities have been proposed to jumpstart growth in dysfunctional jurisdictions around the world.

A few years ago, before a series of high profile failures in places like Honduras and Madagascar, these ideas seemed to be gaining traction. There was cross-spectrum support, ranging from “crazy utopian techno-libertarians” (like the “seasteaders”) to establishment-types like former World Bank Chief Economist Paul Romer.

Mark Lutter straddles these two worlds. He knows what drives libertarian aspirations for free cities, having recently received his PhD from George Mason University (under Don Boudreaux, no less). But Lutter also knows what it takes for radical ideas to get a hearing with the people with the authority to implement it. He recently founded the Center for Innovative Governance, a new think tank, to fill the vacuum in credible academic literature and guide pragmatic policy-makers who see the potential for more innovative governance.

Although it has become a cliche in some circles, governance matters — more than many realize. Writing for Jacobite Magazine, Lutter notes that a practical approach must convince the ruling elites. Our empirical knowledge of what works (rule of law, property rights, etc.) needs to be transmitted to the parts of the world where darkness, superstition, and authoritarianism still reign.

Why City States?

Nation-states have been the default configuration for governance for 400 years. Static in their geographic boundaries, and sclerotic in their administration, nation-states are like lumbering giants that frequently start wars against other countries and shackle their own citizens with one-size-fits-all laws. When it comes to economic activity, however, cities are by far the more dynamic relevant unit. They are also where most of the problems requiring government need to be solved. As Richard Florida, founder of CityLabs, recently wrote:

“Local governments tend to be less ideological and more focused on problem-solving, and they know intimately which problems actually need to be solved. They are more accountable to the people they represent, because they interact with them every day. And because people pick where they live by “voting with their feet,” constituents tend to share the same values as their leaders.”

The push for more innovative governance builds on the on-going devolution of power from dysfunctional nation-states to cities and neighborhoods. Where this devolution is stalled, we see widespread human misery: Honduras, Venezuela, and much of Africa.

This brings up the possibility of cities wresting even more autonomy from their Federal counterparts, and implementing best practices or trying out new ones in the competition for tax-paying constituents. Florida and Lutter suspect that cities that are most attractive to knowledge workers — and those that innovate — are most likely to win.

Lutter is also working on a narrative that will make it easier for policy-makers to implement the changes that will help cities evolve into hubs of next-generation governance. He returns to the show this Sunday to talk about his new organization’s work on this crucial dimension. As a think tank, the Center for Innovative Governance Research aims to provide a menu of policy options, and even more importantly, to cast these options in a compelling light that captures people’s imaginations. He and Bob discuss some of these options, and the surprising places where innovative governance is taking off.

If we trust the media, the world seems to be constantly on the brink of nuclear destruction. Since World War II, global powers have escalated the arms race to the point “Mutually Assured Destruction,” in which it would be suicidal madness for any country to initiate a nuclear attack. Some say that this logical conclusion of nuclear war has held major conflicts at bay, but the world may be getting more dangerous as nations with less to lose unlock the technology to annihilate whole cities with a single bomb.

Hawkish conservatives love to talk about “getting tough” with countries like North Korea and Iran, whose nuclear programs threaten global stability. But while it’s tempting to toughen economic sanctions or plot a pre-emptive strike to enact favorable “regime change,” this strategy does not work according to John Glaser, the Cato Institute’s associate director of foreign policy. Glaser joins the show to break down the latest in the summits and negotiations with North Korea, and to provide some foundations for a more libertarian foreign policy in the current climate.

John Glaser is particularly focused on grand strategy and the role of prestige motivations in international politics. To read between the lines of the recent summit, he notes that we have to consider what motivates foreign dictators, and how best to defuse their feelings of insecurity. After all, they are humans with the same desire for status and respect as any of us.

Glaser’s calm and measured tone in recent TV and radio interviews has mirrored his advice to U.S. leaders and diplomats. First, he says, we have to look at historical patterns. What drives North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and aggression towards the U.S.? The evidence suggests that they mainly seek a deterrent to U.S. invasion. Given our track record in Libya and Iraq — breaking promises and toppling dictators — it’s no wonder that Kim Jong-Un seeks a stronger defense to prevent his own demise.

Second, we have to see how signals of respect — even if undeserved — may be the only way to get North Korea to make concessions in areas of human rights and nuclear de-armament. As the geniuses behind the “Bad Lip Reading” videos show, these meetings are less about specific negotiation points as they are about the surrounding theater, and the optics of a U.S. President meeting the North Korean ruler for the first time.

Despite the spin from both parties, the recent summit was neither a vindication of Trump’s tough-talk from a few months ago (as Republicans claim), nor was it a mistake. Glaser believes that the negotiations were a step in the right direction — a move towards removing some sanctions and giving North Korea some of the respect it craves on the international stage. However, he gives most of the credit to South Korean President Moon Jae-in for providing the assurances to Kim that primed him to attend the meeting.

John Glaser: "North Korea has very recently achieved what it has always wanted to achieve with regard to its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. And that has really strengthened its bargaining position." @IngrahamAnglepic.twitter.com/rGcRkTVvWR

Speaking on Fox News recently, Glaser noted that this kind of negotiation is exactly what North Korea has always wanted. President Trump hinted at reducing the join military exercises by the U.S. and South Korea, and North Korea has offered to remove long-range artillery from the border with South Korea. It’s almost as if a less aggressive stance towards countries like North Korea causes them to reciprocate and tone down their aggression.

While these are positive signs, the real progress will come in the months and years ahead, as diplomats work out the details behind closed doors. Will Trump and Kim be able to put their egos aside to continue down the path of reconciliation? Tune in to get the full picture on North Korea.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoA Bottom-Up Plan to Reshape the Political LandscapeLocal GovernmentBob ZadekThu, 14 Jun 2018 20:03:16 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/6/14/a-bottom-up-plan-to-reshape-the-political-landscape53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b22c78d758d4667b82678e2Liberty is winning at the door, one state legislature at a time.

Liberty is winning at the door, one state legislature at a time.

Federal politics are depressing. The more we learn about how Washington really works, the more House of Cards looks like a work of non-fiction, and the less it seems like there is any hope for nation-wide progress towards liberty. This video of Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky talking about the dysfunction of “The Swamp” confirms what most of us already knew:

Episode 3 of The Swamp is up and it's already getting @RepThomasMassie in trouble!

But before we despair, we should remember that this apparent “bug” is really a feature of the Founder’s plans for the United States. Progress isn’t supposed to come from the Federal Government. “Progress,” to the extent that we can define such a nebulous term, comes from individuals who make their own lives better through effort and personal sacrifice. Of course, somebody has to write the laws, and all libertarians should work towards a freer society. Thomas Massie and Justin Amash– two “liberty Republicans” – are exceptions among the nearly 435 R’s and D’s in Congress who are in love with the government as the solution to their constituents’ problem.

But across the country, there is hope. State legislatures have become testing grounds for sound governance, and libertarian ideals are on the rise — thanks in no small part to student organizations like Young Americans for Liberty (YAL).

Operation Win at the Door

Most people rationally assess that their votes and actions can’t influence the Federal behemoth. Cliff Maloney Jr., President of YAL, grasped this reality and changed the organization’s strategy to give student activists a genuine sense of purpose and accomplishment. The 900+ YAL chapters across the country are already seeing results from their campaign to #MakeLibertyWin in the states, via Operation Win at the Door — starting at the most local level possible.

He joins Bob to talk about what’s happening on college campuses across the country, and how YAL’s new program is influencing national politics from the bottom up.

LISTEN:

Cliff likens the model he’s leading to a baseball farm league. YAL scouts for young talent (think Justin Amash 10 years ago), and supports them with funds and physical “boots on the ground.” Operation Win at the Door has already been successful in three primary races after deploying their army of students to go out and talk to people in their homes. Mayes Middleton of Galveston, Texas, won after YAL students knocked on 25,000 doors. Students knocked on over 30,000 doors for Savannah Maddox of Kentucky. These candidates hope to reach the state legislatures, and from there become increasingly relevant to the national discourse. It’s is a strategy that fits with the libertarian ethos of decentralization, that doesn’t abandon hope for the country as a whole.

RELATED SHOWS:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowCliff Maloney Jr. of Young Americans for Liberty joins the shownoA Bottom-Up Plan to Reshape the Political LandscapeA Bottom-Up Plan to Reshape the Political LandscapeThaddeus Russell on Renegades vs. ConformistsAmerican RevolutionEducationBob ZadekFri, 08 Jun 2018 18:03:29 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/6/8/thaddeus-russell-on-work-ethic-american-freedom-and-postmodernism53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b1ac3060e2e7242ed7d804bThis Sunday, 8–9am PACIFIC, find out what students are really being taught
in humanities and social science departments today. Is postmodernism really
the pernicious, nihilistic doctrine that Jordan Peterson claims it to be?
Before you answer, be sure to tune into Bob’s interview with Thaddeus
Russell, and call in with your thoughts to (424) BOB-SHOW.

Most mainstream accounts of U.S. history run something like this:

The King of England was oppressing the colonies — taxation without representation , etc. — which sparked the American Revolution and quest for self-governance. This began a long struggle for democratic freedom that would be continually redefined, first through a civil war and then through a protracted civil rights battle to extend the liberties first won for white males to all of “We the People,” including women and minorities.

At each step, it’s said to be noble reformers and moral visionaries who took the courageous stand against the oppressive forces of injustice and discrimination. This naive telling may explain how certain civil liberties were gained, such as the right to vote or to be heard in the public square, but it neglects many of the freedoms that a majority of people seem to prefer to the lofty ideals of the founders.

Consider the freedom to drink, gamble, and cavort with whomever one wishes (not to mention the freedom to take long lunch breaks and summer vacations). None of these were guaranteed in the Constitution, and if it were up to some of the influential colonial leaders, people today might be banned from even more innocuous activities like dancing and celebrating Christmas.

Thaddeus Russell exploded the naive view of American history in his 2010 book, showing that it was the rogues and renegades — prostitutes, drunkards, and laggards — who often pioneered freedoms we now take for granted, such as a women’s ability to walk somewhere unaccompanied, or wear makeup.

When Russell tried to share his revisionist research with his students at Barnard, his career was derailed. A talk delivered to his colleagues revealed that he wasn’t “one of them.” In other words, he wasn’t afraid to express unpopular opinions that offended the sensibilities of left-wing coastal elites.

To be sure, Russell is an equal-opportunity offender — dethroning sacred cows on both the left and the right. He joins the show of ideas, not attitude to share his experience working at an Ivy-league university as a heterodox historian.

Why Do We Work?

Furthermore, in a chapter titled “The Freedom of Slavery,” he claims that slaves enjoyed pleasures that were forbidden for white people. Far from defending the institution of slavery, Russell’s point is that following the civil war, the culture among former slaves frequently provided an important source of resistance to the oppressive culture of white Americans — a culture that put labor on a pedestal, and made it the reason for living, rather the means to living.

In his own life, however, Russell values work highly. He spoke with Reason’s Nick Gillespie about his own mission of challenging the Federal process of university accreditation. He is doing so through “unregistered” courses in history and philosophy, offered through his very own Renegade University. Russell also keeps busy with the Unregistered Podcast, but he will remind you that these pursuits are all a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves.

Is Postmodernism a Threat to Liberty?

If you’ve been following the news around freedom of expression on college campuses, you’ve probably seen stories about young, zealous “Social Justice Warriors,” who have a meltdown when confronted with a perspective that challenges their previous indoctrination, courtesy of politically correct humanities departments. Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson is perhaps the best-known opponent of this trend, for refusing to be silenced by students, administrators, or media personalities on the question of transgender pronouns (a kind of compelled speech because of Canada’s new laws).

Peterson has argued that the vaguely defined but sinister ideological movement known as postmodernism is responsible for the destruction of western norms, including free speech and even logic itself. He has described postmodernism as a unified ideology espoused incompletely by many individuals, none of whom perfectly embody or even understand the whole set of doctrines. However, collectively they a pushing a complete worldview, that is the inheritor of the Marxist system for analyzing struggles between the economic classes. Instead of looking at power relationships through an economic lens, postmodernists have shifted their focus to identity politics (perhaps in part because of the horrific failures of communism in the Soviet Union and China). While the ideas behind postmodernism cannot be written down and codified, they share some broad traits such as skepticism of all “metanarratives,” such as those that would place “enlightened man” at the center of history, as told within a story of unrelenting progress.

Russell, however, identifies post-modernism as one of the greatest achievements of academia to date, offering a course through Renegade University titled, “What is Postmodernism?”. He says that thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault are being abused when their theories are applied to enforce totalitarian ideals or compelled speech. Instead, post-modernism is supposed to free humanity from alleged social constructs, including race, class, and gender, so that we can become more responsible for our own fate.

Russell believes that the real problem in academia is the cowardice on the part of tenured professors to say and research what they want, rather than what they know will be safe and acceptable to their suprisingly like-minded colleagues (recall that Democratic professors outnumber Republicans 10 to 1).

---

Find out what students are really being taught in humanities and social science departments today. Is postmodernism really the pernicious, nihilistic doctrine that Jordan Peterson claims it to be? Before you answer, be sure to tune into Bob’s interview with Thaddeus Russell.

RELATED SHOWS

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoJoel Engel on *Scorched Worth: A True Story of Destruction, Deceit, and Government Corruption*, 6/3Big GovernmentFree EnterpriseLitigationBob ZadekSun, 03 Jun 2018 15:10:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/6/3/joel-engel-on-scorched-worth-a-true-story-of-destruction-deceit-and-government-corruption-6353615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b1161e58a922db9b6c2616aHollywood loves to dramatize stories involving corporate bad guys –
lawyered up multinational behemoths who plunder the land just to make a
buck. Bestselling author and screenwriter Joel Engel could have taken this
well-worn path, but instead he flipped the script.Hollywood loves to dramatize stories involving corporate bad guys – lawyered up multinational behemoths who plunder the land just to make a buck. Bestselling author and screenwriter Joel Engel could have taken this well-worn path, and written another clear-cut good guys and bad guys story. However, his latest book – Scorched Worth: A True Story of Destruction, Deceit, and Government Corruption – flips the script. Engel tells of a 65,000-acre forest fire in the Sierra Nevadas in 2007 that led to the aggressive prosecution of Sierra Pacific Industries. After botching the investigation protocol, the Federal government accused SPI of starting the fire based on flimsy evidence. Through his painstaking journalistic probe, Engel uncovered malfeasance by government at each step, from the failure to detect the fire to the biased findings that implicated the lumber giant. It would have been easy to jump on the bandwagon in scapegoating SPI and its ultra-wealthy founder, Archie “Red” Emmerson. Instead, he reveals a portrait of a company that carefully followed the law while wisely stewarding national resources, and a government bureaucracy that didn’t know when to quit.Joel joined the show on Sunday 6/3 to unravel what would have resulted in one of the largest wrongful settlements in forestry history (if it weren’t for those meddling kids). Check out his books on Amazon.

Related Shows:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoAchieving Cognitive Liberty in Our LifetimeBay AreaBob ZadekMon, 21 May 2018 15:29:03 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/5/21/achieving-cognitive-liberty-in-our-lifetime53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5b02e26503ce641fc755e4a7A popular libertarian slogan aims for "liberty in our lifetimes." But since
freedom is so subjective anyway, perhaps what we should really be striving
for is cognitive liberty: our personal well-being, and the freedom from
emotional disturbances.
Dr. Michael Edelstein returns to the show with Bob's producer, Charlie
Deist, to discuss cognitive liberty – freeing ones' self from the mental
traps that act as obstacles to a life of joy.A popular libertarian slogan (most recently adopted by the Free State Project in New Hampshire) strives for "liberty in our lifetimes." But since freedom is so subjective anyway, perhaps what we should really be aiming for is cognitive liberty: our personal well-being, and the freedom from emotional disturbances.

Dr. Michael Edelstein returns to the show with Bob's producer, Charlie Deist, to discuss cognitive liberty – freeing ones' self from the mental traps that act as obstacles to a life of joy.

Links

Related Shows

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoBryan Caplan's Case Against Higher EducationEducationBest OfBob ZadekThu, 10 May 2018 17:04:56 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/5/10/bryan-caplans-case-against-higher-education53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5af4705c6d2a7325bf574964Don’t believe the dogma on higher education – get informed, with the show
of ideas, not attitude. Call in to speak with Bob and Bryan at any time
during the show: (424) BOB-SHOW.Each year, the government spends $80 billion dollars on subsidies to higher education, making it more attractive for high school students to spend four of their most critical years studying topics only marginally more useful than underwater basket weaving. Bryan Caplan, professor of economics at George Mason University, admits to being an Ivory Tower academic (he jokes that he's now in the 41st grade) and that most of his students won't ever use the material he teaches. He also thinks we spend way too much for "products" like his. This honest insiders perspective only lends more credibility to his new book, The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money. However, Caplan acknowledges that he’s fighting an uphill battle against rational self-interest. For most kids, college still pays, and employers still want that piece of paper certifying that its recipient is “system-approved” — i.e., smart enough to play the game, follow directions, and tolerate substantial boredom in the pursuit of abstract goals. While other economists might be afraid to voice such a contrarian opinion, Caplan has never shied away from unpopular opinion (ah, tenure).

Past Shows

]]>The Bob Zadek Showno“Breakfast is Good For You” and Other Dangerous Government-Sponsored MythsCato InstituteGovt. Health InsuranceRegulatory AgenciesBest OfBob ZadekTue, 01 May 2018 20:55:14 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/5/1/why-government-backed-dietary-science-is-bunk53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5ae8cea8562fa7eb7f5876cbLearn how Terence has managed to bring his diabetes under control by
ignoring the official advice of the U.S. government, and embracing a
low-carb, high-fat diet.Terence Kealey is a professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Buckingham – the UK's first entirely private university. He was already a skeptic of government-funded research when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2010, despite following the government's advice. In 2016, he published Breakfast is a Dangerous Meal: Why You Should Ditch Your Morning Meal for Health and Wellbeing, using his insights as a biochemist and philosopher of science to show just how badly the government errs when it gives incorrect advice based on inconclusive science. The conventional wisdom on diet – which became the basis for the government’s high-carb, low-fat “food pyramid" – began with faulty science in the 1970s. Since then, the science has changed, but the government is still peddling the same bad information. Libertarians, in particular, are waking up to the lies they’ve been fed and are getting their diet advice elsewhere, but we all continue to pay for the obesity and diabetes epidemics in the form of shorter lifespans and higher health care premiums (thanks to ObamaCare). Learn how Terence has managed to bring his diabetes under control by ignoring the official advice of the U.S. government, and embracing a low-carb, high-fat diet.

Related shows:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoBob talks Russia Investigation & Self-Driving Cars on Life!Line w/ Craig RobertsBay AreaLibertarianBob ZadekTue, 24 Apr 2018 23:35:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/4/24/bob-talks-russia-investigation-self-driving-cars-on-lifeline-w-craig-roberts53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5ae110cd8a922d28393f212aBob talks Russia Investigation & Self-Driving Cars on Life!Line w/ Craig Roberts, on the Answer's sister station, KFAX, 1100AM.]]>David Boaz on the Libertarian EthosCato InstituteBest OfBob ZadekThu, 19 Apr 2018 11:04:51 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/4/19/david-boaz-on-liberty-vs-the-alt-right53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5ad87516352f5335110b3ae3What does it mean to be a libertarianBerkeley, California—The home of the “Free Speech Movement” became a center of attention last year when writer and professional provacateur Milo Yiannopoulos ignited protests on campus – testing the city’s tolerance of viewpoints outside the progressive orthodoxy. Libertarians, for the most part, have found common cause with these speakers in opposing the new threats to free speech. As Anthony Fisher of Reason has pointed out, groups like Antifa have resorted to violence against innocent parties, and labeled anyone to the left of Bernie Sanders as “fascist.” Unfortunately, the left-wing reaction has caused some libertarians to over-sympathize with members of the so-called “alt-right,” whose aims are also opposed to a free society. David Boaz is Executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of The Libertarian Mind, The Libertarian Reader, and Libertarianism: A Primer. He visited Berkeley in February to give a warning to students who might be seduced by the alt-right, and to explain why the reactionary philosophy is incompatible with libertarianism. While libertarians have reason to be frustrated by the status quo, there is a danger of this anger congealing into hatred. “Ultimately,” Boaz says, “libertarianism is about peaceful cooperation―markets, civil society, global trade, peace, so it just isn’t angry enough for some people.” He joins Bob to make clear how alien the alt-right’s thinking is to a truly libertarian mind.

Related Shows

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoAs Tax Day Approaches, So Does Tax Freedom Day®TaxationBob ZadekSun, 15 Apr 2018 19:03:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/4/15/as-tax-day-approaches-so-does-tax-freedom-day53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5acfad7670a6adc2357e6842April 17 is Tax Freedom Day. For the rest of the year, all the money you
earn belongs to you. How will you celebrate? Tune in Sunday, 8-9am PT.April 17 is tax day – that morose time of year when procrastinators and libertarians alike must swallow their grudge against the government and write it a big check. Just two days later, however, taxpayers can take consolation in another holiday: Tax Freedom Day® – the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay its total tax bill for the year. Based on the calculations of the nonprofit tax watchdog The Tax Foundation, this year’s Tax Freedom Day (April 19) falls three days earlier than last year. But before you get ready to celebrate, keep in mind that the government is spending more in 2018 than ever before. If we continue on our current path, Tax Freedom Day will come later and later in the year. Joe Bishop-Henchman, Executive Vice President of The Tax Foundation, joins the show to get both practical and philosophical about the tax system. Tax policy combines all of the essential questions about fairness versus freedom, along with technical economic questions of tax incidence (who pays?) and deadweight loss (how much value gets lost in the shuffle?). Bob and Joe will discuss what changed because of the recent Tax Cuts and the Jobs Act, and do a round-up of state-based reforms. Tune in to hear the silver lining on the cloud that is tax day.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoICE in the Age of TrumpImmigrationBob ZadekFri, 30 Mar 2018 14:46:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/3/30/ice-in-the-age-of-trump53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5abe36e32b6a284e1a22b06dCalifornia businesses find themselves wedged between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the Federal Government's recent crackdown on undocumented workers – a head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says his agency plans to quadruple the number of unannounced visits to work sites, and a recent raid in the Bay Area shows he's serious. The hard place is California's law criminalizing cooperation with ICE when no warrant is presented. State and local leaders are determined to defend their sanctuary status, including Oakland Mayor Libby Shaaf, who announced the upcoming raid on Twitter. This led President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to retaliate with a lawsuit against the state's directives opposing the Federal Government. Of course, illegal immigrants themselves are left in the ultimate predicament by our schizophrenic politics. Republicans are telling them to "Get in Line! And Stay Out!", while Democrats seem content to keep them as second-class citizens in legal limbo between naturalization and deportation. Mitch Jeserich hosts the award-winning Letters & Politics show on KPFA radio, where he frequently hosts discussions on immigration from a left-leaning perspective. He joins Bob to debate the philosophical differences between libertarians and left-liberals when it comes to immigration, and the constitutionality of the Trump administration's challenge to California's sanctuary state status.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoCheap Hawks; Not Cheap TalkBig GovernmentBob ZadekThu, 22 Mar 2018 18:04:16 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/3/22/cheap-hawks-not-cheap-talk53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5ab34bd970a6ad9909bb416bThe new 2,232 page "omnibus bill" will cost $1.3 trillion and get us 5 more
months of bloated Federal Government. Military spending is the largest
single component. This Sunday, hear how we can slash spending without
weakening our troops.On Wednesday night, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a $1.3 trillion dollar "omnibus bill" to avert a government shutdown. In case you're wondering what $1.3 trillion gets you in 2018, the answer is "five more months of continued operation of the Federal Government." Of that budget, $700 billion goes toward the military. If you assume that government can only be either large and effective or small and ineffective, you might wrongly conclude that we need big spending for public goods like national defense. After all, without a strong military, what is to prevent predators from plundering our productive economy? However, Jonathan Bydlak of the Institute for Spending Reform thinks it's wrong to equate big spending with strength and safety. As a self-proclaimed "cheap hawk," he says we can have a strong military without bankrupting the country. He quotes Michael Mullen – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – who said, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” Mullen believes out-of-control spending actually weakens the military and the resources it uses. Bydlak has started an initiative called "Guide for a Strong America" under the banner of the Institute for Spending Reform, which lays out concrete cuts to the Pentagon's budget that would make us safer. Tune in to hear how D.C.'s culture of spending – which includes GOP leaders – is setting the U.S. up for something worse than a government shutdown.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoDr. Jeff Singer on the Dangers of OpiophobiaCato InstituteCivil LibertiesBob ZadekSat, 17 Mar 2018 08:49:16 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/3/17/dr-jeff-singer-on-the-dangers-of-opiophobia53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5aacd34d70a6adbf5495f546Dr. Singer returns to the show to discuss America’s longest war for the
full hour with Bob. Call in with to (424) BOB-SHOW to speak with Bob and
Jeff at any time.Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer – aka the “Doctor For Liberty” – recently wrote a piece for Cato @ Liberty in which he challenged the mainstream media narrative about the abuse of prescription pain pills. The Trump administration is cracking down on doctors and requiring them to jump through hoops in order to give their patients necessary medication. The War on Drugs remains what it has always been – a war on people. So much unnecessary pain will be caused in the name of staunching the opioid epidemic, which turns out not to be an opioid epidemic after all. The substances change (today, for example, we have the highly dangerous and addictive Fentanyl being illegally smuggled from Chinese factories) but the game stays the same. Prohibition policies hurt the very people they are supposed to help, and experienced professionals (i.e., doctors) are prevented from using their best judgment. Singer says we don’t need more funding for the epidemic, we need more rationality and calm assessment of the data, which suggests that restricting supply of prescription opioids is pushing people to black markets and creating more addicts, not fewer. Instead of facts, we get hysteria. Dr. Singer returns to the show to discuss America’s longest war for the full hour with Bob.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoAn Intellectual Discussion of Sexual Harassment with Richard EpsteinCivil LibertiesFederal CrimesLibertarianBob ZadekSat, 10 Mar 2018 02:22:02 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/3/9/an-intellectual-discussion-of-sexual-harassment-with-richard-epstein53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5aa33ca78165f533f6f0fb63Each week, the list of celebrities accused of sexual assault seems to grow longer. Bill Cosby, Bill O'Reilly, and now Harvey Weinstein are just a few of the mighty who have fallen from grace. But while none of these three men has yet to be officially convicted of a crime, the market's retribution has been swift. O'Reilly lost his show, Weinstein lost his job, and Cosby lost his reputation as the benign, sweater-wearing father figure that America so loved. On college campuses, criminal proceedings are being jettisoned (for different reasons) in favor of Title IX discrimination hearings, which lower the standard for guilt to a "preponderance of evidence." Reason Magazine's Robby Soavehas documented numerous instances in which campus tribunals have functioned as kangaroo courts – ruining the lives of innocent men and women under the banner of civil rights.

Of course, it goes without saying that sexual harassment deserves to be treated seriously. Richard Epstein returns to the show to bring his full intellect to bear on this hairy subject. He and Bob will discuss the threat to free speech posed by the Federal Government's broad guidelines on harassment issued to universities under Title IX legislation. They seek to define appropriate remedies for sexual harassment, and the market's role in punishing bad behavior. Bob will ask what culpability the enablers of sexual harassment possess for saying nothing when "everyone knew" about certain individuals' abusive behavior. Finally, Epstein will explain how anti-discrimination legislation often creates new forms of discrimination. It's time for an adult conversation about sexual harassment.

]]>An Intellectual Discussion of Sexual Harassment with Richard EpsteinnoGetting the Government (Back) Out of MarriageBob ZadekFri, 02 Mar 2018 21:00:24 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/3/2/getting-the-government-back-out-of-marriage53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a99b394e4966b6c0b9182a2Before their wedding, one year ago, Sarah Skwire and Steve Horwitz had both
independently written about the libertarian answer to the hot-button
question of same-sex marriage. Read more...Topic: Getting the Government (Back) Out of Marriage

Guests: Sarah Skwire and Steve Horwitz

Defenders of the free market are often caricatured as calculating, utility maximizers, whose only concern is the efficient allocation of resources. Any attempt to analyze a “market for love” with intersecting supply and demand curves is bound to fall flat. However, that doesn’t mean libertarian economic thought has no implications for how the institution of marriage could be improved. Before their wedding, one year ago, Sarah Skwire and Steve Horwitz had both independently written about the libertarian answer to the hot-button question of same-sex marriage. Horwitz, a libertarian economics at Ball State University, has applied an “Austrian perspective” to explain how the evolution of the market, and the relatively recent development of “marrying for love,” is changing the way people might want to structure the marriage contract. Skwire, a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, has studied “What Marriage Was Like before Bureaucracy,” and found – incredibly – that it worked just fine. They join Bob on their one-year anniversary to discuss a Reason article they co-authored last November (Getting the State Out of Marriage) in which they advocate replacing the one-size-fits-all contract with a private system adapted to changing norms around marriage and family life. They argue that the idea of a traditional marriage system is flawed, and make the case that government’s intrusion into the institution – particularly the special benefits based on marriage status – has created unnecessary controversy.

Related Shows

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoWhat Would Milton Say? Scott Sumner on Market MonetarismFree MarketsRegulatory AgenciesBob ZadekSun, 25 Feb 2018 21:33:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/1/28/what-would-milton-do-scott-sumner-on-market-monetarism53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a6658aa53450a469bdd7499Professor Scott Sumner was launched into the spotlight following the Great
Recession when his blog *The Money Illusion* started to influence the
national conversation on macroeconomic policy.There are several well-documented cases of collective memory lapses, in which masses of people have become convinced of something that never actually happened. Contrary to popular belief, the queen in Snow White never says "Mirror, mirror on the wall," the Monopoly man doesn't wear a monocle, Nelson Mandela did not die in prison, and the Federal Reserve did not ease monetary policy leading up to the Great Recession. Beginning in 2009, a professor named Scott Sumner became perturbed by an apparent false memory of the events around the housing crash and subsequent downturn. He started a blog called *The Money Illusion,* which noted certain parallels between the insufficient action taken by the Fed during the Great Depression, and the timid policy pursued under Chairman Ben Bernanke. Bernanke – himself an economic historian par excellence – gave a speech on Milton Friedman's 90th birthday apologizing to him for making the Great Depression far deeper than it needed to be. "You're right," he said, "we caused the Great Depression. We're sorry. But thanks to you we'll never do it again." Yet just a few years later, Bernanke stood idly by as nominal spending plunged, and inflation fell temporarily to negative levels. The failure to act more aggressively stood in direct opposition to Friedman's recommendations for Japan, which ushered in a whole decade of slow growth because of overly tight money. Somehow, the economics profession seemed to forget all about Bernanke's apology (and Friedman's recommendations), acting as if fiscal policy and other regulations were the only way to avoid another recession.

This Sunday (2/25), Professor Sumner joins Bob's producer Charlie Deist from 8-9am PACIFIC to conclude a three-part series on monetary policy and business cycle theory. Sumner is neither a Keynesian nor an Austrian economist, but rather positions himself within Milton Friedman's monetarist tradition. While Friedman advocated a simple rule for targeting the money supply to stabilize prices, Sumner has adapted monetarist ideas for the 21st century, arguing for a "nominal GDP target" (real output plus inflation) that would automatically adjust based on the market's forecast. Tune in live, and stay tuned for the podcast.

Links:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoBob on Life!Line with Craig RobertsBob ZadekFri, 16 Feb 2018 17:33:18 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/2/16/bob-on-lifeline-with-craig-roberts53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a871533f9619a7edf0c4451What does the recent school shooting spell for the protection of our
fundamental liberties? Bob discusses gun violence and the Bill of Rights with Craig Roberts, host of the Life!Line show, on sister station KFAX - AM 1100.]]>A Sunday Morning Chat with The World's Worst MomReasonBest OfBob ZadekMon, 12 Feb 2018 00:53:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/2/8/modern-day-witch-hunts-with-lenore-skenazy53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a7cf104652dea7a0239d27cWe moderns take pride in the fact that we no longer burn witches. But can
we be so certain that we’ve emerged from the dark ages to a new enlightened
state of mind? Lenore Skenazy joins the show of ideas, not attitude,
Sunday, 2/11, from 8-9am PACIFIC.We moderns take pride in the fact that we no longer burn witches. But can we be so certain that we’ve emerged from the "Dark Ages" to a new enlightened state of mind? Lenore Skenazy sees some of the markings of a modern-day witch hunt in sex-offender registry laws. There’s no doubt that we need mechanisms to protect potential victims of sexual violence, but Skenazy argues that these registries enact draconian yet ineffective punishments – often branding relatively innocent minors for life, lumping them in with some of the most heinous criminals. It takes bravery to advance this view, given the unpopularity of the cause (don’t expect a March for Sex Offenders’ Rights anytime soon). But demonization hasn’t stopped Skenazy from making common-sense arguments – with a heavy dose of humor – about this and other modern-day witch hunts. She was labeled the “World’s Worst Mom” for allowing her 9-year-old son to ride the NYC subway and writing about it in the New York Post. The controversy led her to start a now-global movement of “Free Range Kids.” She now frequently speaks and writes to debunk myths like the ubiquitous kidnapper, and the incurable sex offender (the most common age of people on the sex offender registry is 14 years old). Skenazy’s latest project encourages parents and schools to grant kids more autonomy – to let go, and Let Grow – as such experiences, and the small risks involved, are essential to learning. She joins Bob this Sunday – fresh off a Cato Institute symposium, titled, “You May Be a Sex Offender if…” – to restore sanity to the conversation around sexual harassment, sex offenders, and over-sensitivity on college campuses.

Past Shows:

It’s tempting to divide the world, in its unyieldingly complexity, into "good guys" and "bad guys." This provides endless plots and ratings for Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, but it often hides the messy reality of our criminal justice system, where overzealous prosecution can make new victims out of innocent people. Sarah Stillman is an award-winning journalist and staff writer for The New Yorker, with a talent for bringing clarity and nuance to murky topics. The last time Stillman joined the show, she had written a gripping exposé on civil asset forfeiture – the unconstitutional takings of private property by police from suspects who have not been convicted of any crime. Now, she joins Bob to discuss her latest New Yorker piece, *The List,* on an even more delicate subject: minors placed on the sex-offender registry for their youthful mistakes. Stillman reports on a sampling of tragic cases, which cast doubt on laws that lead to harsh sentences and life-long scarlet letters for kids – some as young as 10 years old. We all want to protect victims. Tune in, and you may be surprised to learn how poorly the system works, even by that measure.

Lenore Skenazy first made waves after writing a column about how she let her nine-year-old son ride the New York City subway home alone. This was followed by a public outcry, including the accusation of "World's Worst Mom," which led Lenore to defend her position on TV programs like The View, The Today Show, and Anderson Cooper 360. Skenazy eventually repurposed her accusers' label for a TV reality series titled, "World's Worst Mom," in which she helped to keep "helicopter parents" from hovering so close to their children. What has changed in America? Parents no longer send kids out to play in their neighborhoods. Strangers are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Even halloween candy is viewed suspiciously (despite no reports of any kid poisonings, ever). Lenore Skenazy believes this is no way for a free society to operate. Not only is it dreary, but it might be completely unnecessary. Perhaps it's time we looked at the numbers and broke down the risks, as Lenore does in her book, "Free Range Kids." Whether you have kids or not, you'll want to hear Bob and Lenore discussing the real threat to life and liberty – our own paranoia.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoLet’s Talk About California’s “High-Speed” RailBob ZadekSun, 04 Feb 2018 21:33:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/1/22/quentin-kopp-not-the-rail-were-looking-for53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a66569fe4966b1b4941e42cThe man behind Prop. 1A now says the convention rail is “almost a
crime. Retired Judge and icon of California politics Quentin Kopp joins
The Bob Zadek Show for the full hour, Sunday, 2/4 – 8–9am PACIFIC. Listen
Live on 860AM — The Answer, or check your local listings in Seattle,
Sacramento, Portland and Denver.California has problems. After years of drought, last year’s deluge caused the Oroville Dam to burst, costing nearly $1 billion. Meanwhile, the welfare rolls are swelling, and the millionaires on whom the state depends for its tax revenues are leaving the state in droves. This would seem to be a time to get back to basics, but proponents of the high-speed rail are plowing ahead with the project despite delays, lawsuits, and cost overruns. The original bond measure — Proposition 1A — passed in 2008, with a slim majority of Californians voting for a state of the art, 220mph, electrified train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. It was to be partly funded by taxpayer money, and partly by private investment. Now, the project has morphed into a patchwork of conventional and high-speed rail, and encountered serious issues at the earliest, and allegedly easiest, stages of construction. There are now big questions for those private investors, who were supposed to emerge to foot the remainder of the bill for what is no longer the high-speed project it was supposed to be. For these reasons and more, one of the proposition’s original most ardent advocates — Judge Quentin Kopp — has turned on the idea. In fact, he now says it’s “almost a crime.” Kopp is a retired judge and former Chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority. He served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and in the California State Senate and joins the show to explain how the high-speed rail has gotten so far off track.

Related Shows:

In this episode, Bob welcomes Adrian Moore of Reason Magazine to his show. The topic – high-speed rail in California and around the country. High-speed rail is the intersection of crony capitalism, wealth transfers to unions and the hocking the future. Why must politicians always find the total absence of a need and then fill it with massive spending? If California proceeds with this project, it will make Boston’s Big Dig seem like the paving of a driveway. Adrian’s expertise and Bob’s exasperation will provide with a week’s worth of adrenalin. Take a valium and tune in.

Think back. In the past week have you moved from one place to another? Traveled to work? To Another City? If so, did you travel by car, by plane, by light rail, by “heavy” rail, subway, or by bus? If you’ve answered “yes” to any of these questions, you must catch this episode with Bob Poole, a founder of Reason Magazine and its Director of Transportation Policy. Whether we’re talking about private toll roads, privatization of airports, Amtrak or High-Speed Rail, light rail systems in cities, or intercity buses (remember Greyhound?) your life (and your pocketbook) is affected by transportation policy. As you’ll hear in this podcast, whatever the transportation problem, government is the problem and free markets are the answer.

In this episode, Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute joins Bob to discuss how Plan Bay Area will impact the local landscape and lives of Bay Area residents. O'Toole is equipped with the hard facts and figures that demythologize public transit, including the most romantic transportation method of all: the lofty rail. Why the seeming obsession with this outdated technology? Could the real driving force behind the fixation on rail be how well it fits in with regional planners' latest scheme for "smart growth," aka "urban densification"? As O'Toole writes, it's clear that transit has become a source of political favors to unions, downtown property owners, and rail contractors. It's less clear who else reaps the benefits.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoBob's Take on Trump's First YearPresidential PowerBob ZadekTue, 16 Jan 2018 20:15:45 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/1/16/bobs-take-on-trumps-first-year53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a5e5c638165f56a9d3c511dHow do you grade Trump's first year? It's a mixed bag for libertarians.It’s been one year since Trump’s inauguration. While his approval ratings remain low, confidence in the economy is high, and some pundits credit Trump’s anti-regulatory policies and tax cut plan for the boost. But before getting too excited about some of the new administration’s libertarian leanings, it’s worth remembering a couple of things. First, the spend is to tax, and the Federal Government seems to only be increasing its spending, both at home and militarily. Second, while Trump has used his administrative authority to slash red tape now, he will leave his successor with expanded power to reinstate repealed regulations, and add thousands of new ones. Bob joins Craig Roberts, host of Life!Line, to review the past year -- from foreign policy moves to judge nominations --and to grade President Trump’s performance so far.

For 22 years, Craig Roberts has hosted KFAX’s popular afternoon drive talk show, “Life!Line,” Northern California’s longest running and most widely listened to show of its kind. The program features a multitude of subjects and newsmakers, covering politics, current affairs, family issues and ministry opportunities around the San Francisco Bay Area, across the nation and around the world.

]]>Life!Line with Craig RobertsnoThe Basics of Bitcoin & Blockchain with Stan LarimerEntrepreneurshipFree MarketsInnovationBob ZadekSun, 14 Jan 2018 19:29:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/1/11/the-basics-of-bitcoin-blockchain-with-stan-larimer53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a57b834c8302558ef0b09e5Does Bitcoin signal the end of money-printing and inflation by central
banks as we know it, or does it represent something larger and less
predictable? You’ve seen their tables at libertarian conferences, and heard their radio ads warning of an immanent collapse of the financial system. Goldbugs, who stockpile precious metals, have been stereotyped as paranoid — occupying a fringe of the already-fringe liberty movement. Until recently, the only group further on the fringes than the goldbugs were the “crypto-anarchists”: radical libertarian computer geeks with theories about how to replace central banks and financial institutions with an unregulated online payments system and password-protected "cryptocurrency". Most of these digital cash schemes came to naught — frustrated by the complex problem of getting strangers to trust the validity of online transactions, and guarantee that the “money” — strings of 1s and 0s on a hard drive somewhere — is actually being transferred once, and only once, to another digital location. Bitcoin solved this problem with a decentralized, public ledger (aka, "blockchain"), recording all transfers of bitcoins in real time. A decade after its creation, the elegant protocol for money on the internet is now a topic of household discussion. Last year, Bitcoin appreciated nearly 20 fold, from $1,000 per Bitcoin in January 2017, to almost $20,000 by mid-December.

If you’re still in the dark about cryptocurrencies, tune in to our special hour-long primer with Stan Larimer. Bob and Stan will break down the basics of Bitcoin, as well as the Bitshares competitor, that Stan is helping to build on Bitcoin’s foundations as an alternative blockchain-based financial system. Known as “The Godfather of BitShares,” Stan Larimer has forty years of experience in software, hardware, and systems engineering, program management, business development and even teaching rocket science at the US Air Force Academy. Stan is CEO of Cryptonomex, a leading custom blockchain development company.

Does Bitcoin signal the end of money-printing and inflation by central banks as we know it? Furthermore, does it represent something larger and less predictable?

Links:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoCanada Needs Plasma. Should the Pay Donors to Get it?Free MarketBob ZadekSun, 07 Jan 2018 15:19:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2018/1/5/peter-jaworksi-on-markets-for-blood-plasma53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a4f18b40d9297d3c328895bIf you bring up the idea of compensating donors of bodily tissues and
fluids at a dinner party, you’re likely to evoke reactions of disgust (and
fewer future dinner party invitations). However, given the importance of
these procedures and shortage of donors, the conversation must be had
somewhere.Medical advances like organ transplants and blood plasma transfusions have created new dilemmas for healthcare workers, economists, and ethicists alike. If you bring up the idea of compensating donors of bodily tissues and fluids at a dinner party, you’re likely to evoke reactions of disgust (and fewer future dinner party invitations). However, given the importance of these procedures and shortage of donors, the conversation must be had somewhere. That’s why we reserved a full hour to discuss the topic with business ethicist Peter Jaworski of Georgetown University. Jaworski advocates the legalization of blood plasma sales in his native country of Canada. Our neighbors to the north currently import the life-saving serum from the U.S., where “donations” are incentivized with small cash payments. Peter recently penned an op-ed for Canada’s National Post titled, “Canada needs blood plasma. We should pay donors to get it.” He brings a nuanced understanding of the opposing arguments, along with a convincing rebuttal that might even persuade your friends at the next cocktail party of the merits of such incentives for plasma donation (although we aren’t responsible for any friends lost over the issue). Why are some goods, namely those that come from the human body, thought to be off-limits for sale? Tune in to hear the case for legalizing the repugnant.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoF.H. Buckley on *The Republic of Virtue*FoundersFederalismCrony CapitalismBob ZadekMon, 01 Jan 2018 00:28:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/12/29/fh-buckley-on-cracking-the-corruption-nut53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a46a950ec212ddd08a96384When Frank H. Buckley last joined the show, he surprised Bob with a cogent,
intellectual case for the election of Donald Trump. Buckley, a Foundation
Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law, advised Team
Trump on campaign speeches, and geared his last book, The Way Back,
towards a set of practical solutions to “restore the promise of America.”When Frank H. Buckley last joined the show, he surprised Bob with a cogent, intellectual case for the election of Donald Trump. Buckley, a Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law, advised Team Trump on campaign speeches, and geared his last book, The Way Back, towards a set of practical solutions to “restore the promise of America.” His latest book, The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What we Can Do About It, completes the triptych that began with The Once and Future King, about the return of “crown governance” under the Obama administration. It should come as no surprise to listeners to this show we have drifted from the Founders’ vision of a balance of powers — balance between states and Federal government, and among branches of Federal government. Bob and Frank delve deeper into his arguments in all three books, focusing on the age-old problem of corruption — the quid-pro-quo of money for political influence that plagues every system of government. While everyone agrees that corruption is a problem, Buckley argues that platitudes about campaign finance reform and eliminating “dark money” miss the mark, and often worsen the problem by making the political system less competitive. Instead, he offers a set of solutions that limit the influence of lobbyists, reign in the executive branch’s authority, and break up corrupt judicial rings in the states. They also discuss the recent tax bill, and why Buckley thinks its passage is reason enough to vindicate his support for Trump.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoCapitalism and Morality: Twin Pillars of the WestCapitalismDemocracyImmigrationBob ZadekSun, 17 Dec 2017 13:45:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/12/15/capitalism-and-morality-twin-pillars-of-the-west53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a33ce8b71c10b467bda54ebJayant Bhandari is not afraid to sound politically incorrect when he speaks
about the importance of western capitalist institutions to the third world.Jayant Bhandari is not afraid to sound politically incorrect when he speaks about the importance of western capitalist institutions to the third world. An Indian-born Canadian citizen, Bhandari is often asked why he left one socialist country for another. To this, he points out that the difference of dysfunction is an order of magnitude — while Canada’s health care system may require people to wait in line for procedures, India’s general lack of a sewage system forces its citizens to wait in a different kind of line. His harsh words are not reserved for the third-world, but also for the European leaders who left a vacuum in the wake of colonialism, now filled by irrationality, demagoguery and superstition. His main points might be considered hate speech if he wasn’t an immigrant himself. He puts the enlightenment value of reason at the center of the moral fabric that holds the West together —those institutions that grant equality before the law, and encourage empathy and compassion. When the state assumes the people’s responsibility to take care of themselves and one another, the result is corruption — governmentally and, he adds, mentally. Bhandari hosts the annual "Capitalism and Morality" seminar in Vancouver, and writes for a variety of libertarian outlets, including the Mises.org and Acting Man. He joins Bob for the full hour . Tune in to hear Bhandari’s international perspective on capitalism and morality, on the show of ideas, not attitude.

Related Shows:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowJayant Bhandari is not afraid to sound politically incorrect when he speaks about the importance of western capitalist institutions to the third world. An Indian-born Canadian citizen, Bhandari is often asked why he left one socialist country for another. To this, he points out that the difference of dysfunction is an order of magnitude — while Canada’s health care system may require people to wait in line for procedures, India’s general lack of a sewage system forces its citizens to wait in a different kind of line. His harsh words are not reserved for the third-world, but also for the European leaders who left a vacuum in the wake of colonialism, now filled by irrationality, demagoguery and superstition. His main points might be considered hate speech if he wasn’t an immigrant himself. He puts the enlightenment value of reason at the center of the moral fabric that holds the West together —those institutions that grant equality before the law, and encourage empathy and compassion. When the state assumes the people’s responsibility to take care of themselves and one another, the result is corruption — governmentally and, he adds, mentally. Bhandari hosts the annual "Capitalism and Morality" seminar in Vancouver, and writes for a variety of libertarian outlets, including the Mises.org and Acting Man. He joins Bob for the full hour . Tune in to hear Bhandari’s international perspective on capitalism and morality, on the show of ideas, not attitude.noProfessor Brad DeLong on Austrian EconomicsCentral PlanningEducationFree MarketRegulatory AgenciesBob ZadekSun, 10 Dec 2017 20:13:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/12/9/the-keynesian-critique-of-austrian-economics53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a2c402a53450a299b36d16cProducer Charlie Deist tries to cram a semester of economics into one hour with Professor J. Bradford Delong He continues to look at the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, (see part 1), which holds central banks responsible for creating booms and busts by “pumping” cheap credit into the economy and subsequently “slamming on the breaks” when inflation results. Brad DeLong is a former deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, and a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, where he is chair of the political economy major. He was also an early blogger, and is one of the most respected voices in the “neoclassical synthesis”—the hybrid of classical, Keynesian, and monetarist macroeconomics taught at universities throughout the world. DeLong has criticized Austrians for putting the blame for business cycles entirely on government. However, he too was concerned by Alan Greenspan’s excessive easing, starting all the way back in 2004, and during the lead-up to the housing bust.

Tune in to find out why DeLong considers himself a student of both Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes, and learn what it means to be a liberal in both the modern and classical senses.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoBob Wenzel on Austrian Business Cycle ABCsLibertarianBig GovernmentBob ZadekMon, 04 Dec 2017 00:43:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/12/1/robert-wenzel-on-austrian-business-cycleabcs53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a21f594e2c483bcf39a4d3dRobert Wenzel's speech at the Federal Reserve has been read by
approximately 1,000,000 people. With housing prices climbing back into
bubble territory, could Austrian economics be ripe for a revival?Date: 12/3

Topic: Will 2018 Be the Year Austrian Business Cycle Theory Becomes Relevant Again?

Guest: Bob Wenzel

This Sunday, producer Charlie Deist interviews Robert Wenzel (@Wenzeleconomics) – editor of the Economic Policy Journal, host of The Robert Wenzel Show, and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. He also gives financial advice, rooted in the Austrian school of economics – based on the ideas of F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and other economists from Austria – which predicts failures of government intervention in the market. The Austrians were especially aware of the dangers of printing money, having observed the hyperinflation of the nearby Weimar Republic. Their theories of how monetary manipulation spurs bad investment has spawned an entire heterodox tradition, at odds with mainstream interpretations of recessions In 2005, Wenzel wrote an essay applying the Austrian theory of business cycles to the actions the Federal Reserve was taking at the time to prop up the economy, following the recession of 2000–2001. While Alan Greenspan tooted his own horn, Wenzel sounded the alarm. Following the crash, through an unusual series of events, Wenzel was invited to give a talk at New York Federal Reserve Bank, where he planted the Austrian seed. Now, approximately 1,000,000 people have read the speech, in which Wenzel pleaded with the scant crowd of attendees – all dedicated employees at the Fed – to leave their posts and never come back.

With interest rates having been near zero ever since, and stock market and housing prices rising to new highs, are we in need of an Austrian revival? Tune in to the show of ideas, not attitude.

Links

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoBob Wenzel on Austrian Business Cycle ABCsBob Wenzel on Austrian Business Cycle ABCsThe Chicken#%*& Club with Jesse EisingerCrony CapitalismBob ZadekSun, 26 Nov 2017 17:33:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/11/22/the-chickenshit-club-with-jesse-eisinger53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a159fbe652dea2e1ab8fdeeIn the first chapter of The Chickenshit Club, Eisinger tells of a meeting
at the Southern District office, in which then-District Attorney James
Comey asked all of the lawyers who had never lost a case to raise their
hands. Comey then informed the puffed-up attorneys that they were members
of what he and his friends called “the Chickenshit Club.”We’ve covered the problem of mass incarceration on this show before — but what about the flipside: the impunity of corporate executives with cozy relationships to government regulators? Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Jesse Eisinger (@EisingerJ) wanted to know why no bankers or executives went to prison after the 2008 financial crisis. In a bygone era, the Justice Department prosecuted Wall Street executives more vigorously for its high crimes and misdemeanors. Eisinger’s new book, The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives, charts the decline in enforcement of white collar crime, telling the story of a passionate U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York — none other than former FBI Director James Comey — and his attempts to jam the revolving doors of power between the DOJ and private law firms. Somehow, we’ve reached a point where bad actors cannot receive the due penalty for their errors without threatening the rest of society. We’ve built a world where “too big to fail” also translates into “too big for jail.” Eisinger finds a source of this cowardice in a perfectionist culture and risk-aversion among top law students, where it's increasingly rare for the Justice Department to bring a case to a jury if there is a chance of losing. To learn more, tune into the show of ideas, not attitude — this Sunday, from 8–9am PACIFIC, and call in with your questions for Bob and Jesse: (424) BOB-SHOW.

*Jesse Eisinger is a senior reporter and editor at ProPublica. In April 2011, he and a colleague won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for a series of stories on questionable Wall Street practices that helped make the financial crisis the worst since the Great Depression.

]]>The Chicken#%*& Club with Jesse EisingerG. R. Mobley on Republic ReviewAmerican RevolutionConstitutionSecret SauceBob ZadekMon, 20 Nov 2017 02:24:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/11/16/g-r-mobley-on-republic-review53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a0e412f0d9297dc479089acConstitutional Orthodoxy (n.) — adhering to the codified processes that
were established within the Constitution as defined by the States
(founders) during the ratification process. Consequently, the founders
dictated and enumerated the limitations and scope of the general
government as a delegated entity within the Hybrid Constitutional
Republic. Returning to Constitutional Orthodoxy is the only course that
will preserve the Constitution, Individual Liberty, and the Republic.2016 confirmed what most libertarians suspected: national elections are not the way to roll back big government. But don’t lose hope – yet. Spokane talk radio host G. R. Mobley has a surprisingly sound plan for “saving your liberties without a national election.” It requires listeners to this program to take note, and share the message. Mobley says the Constitution is a “contract” amongst the States, “to not only create and define the general (i.e. Federal) government with limited and defined powers, but… also [to create] a perpetual union of these same States.” Per contract law, Mobley asserts that context is essential for understanding the definitions and intent of a contract — in this case, the Constitution. The Ratification Debates set the agreed upon terms, which are still vital. If one part of the contract is not being enforced, the whole contract should be void. In 2017, he says the parties to this contract (i.e., the states) need to renegotiate, through a process he calls "Republic Review." Listeners should ideally read and understand these debates, which took place between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, in and around 1787. However, a concise version appears in Bob’s new book, *Secret Sauce: The Founders’ Original Recipe for Limited American Democracy.* There is a path to restoring Constitutional governance, but is there a critical mass? What’s needed initially is not so much a full-fledged movement, but a small "remnant" that understands the principles of liberty, when they have ceased to resonate with the average voter. Learn what you need to know to start the ball rolling on "Republic Review."

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoAmy Wax Defends Bourgeois NormsEducationBob ZadekSun, 12 Nov 2017 15:03:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/11/9/amy-wax-defends-bourgeois-norms53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5a046e36e4966b734cf1a215As a professor, it takes courage to stand up for your values when you are
being publicly condemned by your fellow faculty, the dean of your school,
student groups and a media mob.It takes courage for a law professor to stand up for her values when she is being publicly condemned by her fellow faculty members, the dean of her law school, student groups, and a media mob. This is what U Penn law professor Amy Wax has done in the wake of her explosive op-ed, "Paying the price for breakdown of the country's bourgeois culture" (Philadelphia Enquirer, Aug. 9, 2017). In the piece, Wax and her co-author Larry Alexander presented some uncontroversial facts about the relationship between stable, two-parent homes and positive outcomes for children. They also reprimanded an upper class that no longer seems willing to preach the importance of traditional values. Some of Wax's colleagues responded to the op-ed piece with alternative theories of why poverty is entrenched, but the overwhelming message of an open letter – signed by 33 U Penn professors – was that Wax had committed an intellectual crime deserving of censure and public shaming. The debate over Wax's praise for "bourgeois values" goes deeper than her arguments for a return to norms of hard work and personal responsibility. At stake is the freedom to challenge or contradict academic groupthink, which equates any identification of legitimate advantages with an apology for unfair privilege. If the students demanding that Wax be demoted get their way, then professors everywhere will feel a "chill" on voicing their own unpopular opinions. Wax joins Bob for the full hour to describe the anatomy of a campus intimidation campaign, and explain why she continues to speak her mind.

Topics: Avoiding the Trap of Self-Esteem

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” - Prince Hamlet, Hamlet

This week's guest, Dr. Michael Edelstein, helps his patients see clearly what Shakespeare intuited about the relationship between thinking and emotional health. Edelstein is a long-time libertarian and practitioner of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. This method leaves your childhood in the past, and instead trains you to challenge and replace distorted thinking with a more rational – even cheerful – perspective towards the things we cannot change. As the world hurtles towards an uncertain and unsettling future, we can find comfort in Dr. Edelstein’s advice on how to stay happy in a statist world. First, we need to recognize the traps that we're likely to fall into, including the sacred cow of "self esteem." Self esteem, Edelstein says, is the "unempirical, illogical and impractical" notion that we should rate our whole selves, rather than our actions, and think highly of ourselves regardless. Once we start thinking this way, we're more likely to end up with the opposite emotion when we make mistakes. When large groups or nations succumb to these stark and unrealistic self-portraits, it can lead to nationalism, wars, and even mass insanity. It’s not often that you get to hear a libertarian attorney interview a libertarian clinical psychologist on the secret to overcoming anxiety and depression. Just because the world's gone crazy doesn't mean you have to. Bob's producer, Charlie Deist, also joins the show. Learn how to respond rationally to adverse events from the Bay Area's premier vegan, libertarian cognitive behavioral therapist, on the show of ideas, not attitude.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowAn interview with SF's premier vegan, libertarian clinical psychologist.noBob Interviewed on *Reclaiming the Republic*ConstitutionFoundersBob ZadekThu, 02 Nov 2017 14:30:18 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/11/2/bob-interviewed-on-reclaiming-the-republic53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59fb20c0692670568435c120A storm is brewing. The Constitution still offers a path forward for those
with eyes to see and ears to hear. Hear Bob and G.R. Mobley discuss a
groundbreaking proposal to reclaim the Republic.Bob was recently interviewed by G.R. Mobley – a libertarian constitutionalist who hosts a radio program in Spokane, Washington.

Mobley's show, Reclaiming the Republic, servea as a organization point for Constitutional Warriors and concerned citizens to coalesce and establish ground efforts within their area and State to move their State legislators to audit the Constitution and call upon their fellow States to convene a convention for Republic Review. Read more about his project at http://www.reclaimingtherepublic.org/

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoRobert Alt of the Buckeye Institute: Power to the StatesFederalismUnionsBob ZadekSun, 29 Oct 2017 18:06:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/10/29/robert-alt-on-the-buckeye-institute53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59dd0c2b9f7456ca40687752“Public sector unions gives workers no voice, and no choice." - Robert AltGuest: Robert Alt, President of the Buckeye Institute (policy organization in Ohio).

So far, the biggest silver lining on the Trump presidency has been a national shift in focus toward state-level policies. In his inauguration speech, President Trump promised to return “power to the people” – devolving responsibilities previously undertaken by Federal Government to the states, where citizens can more effectively voice their opinions, or vote with their feet if that fails. Even the San Francisco Chronicle has praised the “great American tradition” of Federalism since discovering that California could use the concept to resist Federal immigration directives. Robert Alt, President and CEO of the Buckeye Institute, used to work in Washington D.C., but took the helm of the Ohio-based free market think tank in 2012 after deciding that the real change is happening at the state level. Under his leadership, the Buckeye Institute has been winning public policy victories in tax policy, workers’ voting rights, and criminal justice reform. Recently, he has been fighting to grant public sector union workers the ability to vote for their union representation. He and Bob also discuss the Buckeye Institute’s important work in criminal justice, and the need for more ground-up reforms across the 50 states. What can California learn from Ohio, and how can every state engage in novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country?

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoLawson Bader on DonorsTrust and the Right to Free AssociationAmendmentsCEIConstitutionSupreme CourtBob ZadekSun, 22 Oct 2017 18:03:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/10/22/lawson-bader-on-donor-privacy-and-intent53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59dd0b80f09ca4fc3885b275Transparency is for government. Privacy is for its citizens. Hear Lawson
Bader defend DonorsTrust against accusations that it spreads "dark money"
in the political system, LIVE – Sunday, 8-9am PACIFIC.Guest: Lawson Bader, President & CEO, DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund

Date: 10/22, 8-9 am PACIFIC TIME

In 1956, the attorney general of Alabama tried to oust the NAACP from the state, and issued a subpoena for their donor lists. Fortunately, a unanimous Supreme Court decision protected the organization's right to keep this information private – finding that Alabama had violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote, “This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” Today, DonorsTrust helps philanthropists match their money to the principles of limited government, personal responsibility and free enterprise while remaining anonymous. They serve as a conduit between donors and organizations like the Cato Institute, Mercatus Center, and the American Enterprise Institute, and have attracted sharp criticism from politicians who oppose the ideas these groups promote. While the attacks are couched in terms of “transparency” and preventing “dark money” from influencing elections, this language conceals the drive to weaken a cornerstone of liberty in the U.S. – the right to privacy in one’s freely chosen associations. Lawson Bader (formerly the President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute) recently stepped up as President and CEO of DonorsTrust, where he takes the heat on behalf of this entire network of donors, which is “building a legacy of liberty.” Lawson notes that transparency is for government, whereas privacy is for citizens. He joins Bob to discuss the new threats to freedom of association, and explain the value of donor-advised funds like DonorsTrust – both to philanthropists and the causes they support.

Related Shows:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoLuis Perez-Breva on Artificial Intelligence MythsInnovationBob ZadekSun, 15 Oct 2017 16:57:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/10/15/professor-luis-perez-breva-on-artificial-intelligence-t5f8253615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59df9ef6c027d80e66e9e32bThe talk of artificial intelligence is everywhere, but the truth is, most
of us don't really know what AI is. In his op-ed in Business Insider, Luis
debunks 5 major AI myths that have been manufactured due to the dominant
and often misleading dystopian narrative about AI in the future: GUEST: Professor Luis Perez-Breva, the head of MIT's Innovation Teams Program and an expert on artificial intelligence.

Subscribe

Get the podcast in iTunes or Stitcher

The talk of artificial intelligence is everywhere, but the truth is, most of us don't really know what AI is. In his op-ed in Business Insider, Luis debunks 5 major AI myths that have been manufactured due to the dominant and often misleading dystopian narrative about AI in the future:

Bob and Luis focus on the first myth, which seems to arrive dressed in new garb every couple of decades. Historical figures ranging from Queen Elizabeth I (1589) to John Maynard Keynes (1930) have predicted that new inventions would give rise to mass unemployment, and the dire warnings keep coming. Today's predictions come with the added warning of impending doom. But is there anything to fear (other than fear itself)? Luis is a serial innovator, who currently directs the MIT Innovation Teams Program, MIT’s flagship hands-on innovation program jointly operated between the Schools of Engineering and Management. He joins the show to clarify the difference between automation, robotics, and true artificial intelligence. His new book Innovating: A Doer’s Manifesto for Starting from a Hunch, Prototyping Problems, Scaling Up, and Learning to Be Productively Wrong (MIT Press, 2017) also lays out a framework for thinking about innovation, which cannot be captured in any template or formula. Get ready to use your brain.

Related Shows:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowThe talk of artificial intelligence is everywhere, but the truth is, most of us don't really know what AI is. In his op-ed in Business Insider, Luis debunks 5 major AI myths that have been manufactured due to the dominant and often misleading dystopian narrative about AI in the future: The talk of artificial intelligence is everywhere, but the truth is, most of us don't really know what AI is. In his op-ed in Business Insider, Luis debunks 5 major AI myths that have been manufactured due to the dominant and often misleading dystopian narrative about AI in the future:
Myth 1: AI is going to kill our jobs
Myth 2: Robots are AI
Myth 3: Big Data and Analytics are AI
Myth 4: Machine Learning and Deep Learning are AI
Myth 5: Search engines are AI
Bob and Luis focus on the first myth, which seems to arrive dressed in new garb every couple of decades. Historical figures ranging from Queen Elizabeth I (1589) to John Maynard Keynes (1930) have predicted that new inventions would give rise to mass unemployment, and the dire warnings keep coming. Today's predictions come with the added warning of impending doom. But is there anything to fear (other than fear itself)? Luis is a serial innovator, who currently directs the MIT Innovation Teams Program, MIT’s flagship hands-on innovation program jointly operated between the Schools of Engineering and Management. He joins the show to clarify the difference between automation, robotics, and true artificial intelligence. His new book Innovating: A Doer’s Manifesto for Starting from a Hunch, Prototyping Problems, Scaling Up, and Learning to Be Productively Wrong (MIT Press, 2017) also lays out a framework for thinking about innovation, which cannot be captured in any template or formula. Get ready to use your brain.noAnthony L. Fisher on Antifa Violence & Neo-ReactionReasonBob ZadekSun, 08 Oct 2017 19:29:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/10/4/anthony-l-fisher-on-antifa-violence-neo-reaction53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59d4fc85914e6baaf465d287In a column for the Daily Beast, Anthony L. Fisher brings his
characteristic clarity and nuance to bear on the anti-fascist protesters –
aka "Antifa" – that have made recent headlines. Last time writer and filmmaker* Anthony L. Fisher joined the show, he exposed the mysterious death of a 20-year-old confidential informant. His Reason TV documentary and article were later picked up by 60 Minutes, and led many to rethink the role of confidential informants in the criminal justice system. Anthony also covered the Occupy Wall Street protests back in 2011, when it was unclear what the movement stood for or where it was heading. In a column for the Daily Beast, Anthony brings his characteristic clarity and nuance to bear on the anti-fascist protesters – aka "Antifa" – that have made recent headlines. Between Nazi white supremacists and anti-fascists (aka “Antifa”), Anthony is adamant that the former possess the more odious ideology, and are responsible for far more victims than the latter. However, this does not justify the acceptance of indiscriminate violence displayed by Antifa at recent protests and rallies. Anthony notes that violent, anarchic tactics have historically bolstered far-right elements. This suggests non-violent resistance is still the best option against a rising tide of xenophobia in the United States and elsewhere. This Sunday, Anthony will take your calls on the disturbing glorification of violence by some intellectuals, and the watering down of terms like “fascist” to include individuals who merely disagree with left-wing orthodoxy. When anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is labelled a fascist, the result is a poisoned public discourse. Can we recover civil dialogue in the midst of such intellectual laziness? Bob and Anthony also break down the differences between alt-right, neoreactionary, and outright fascist/white supremacist groups.

*See the trailer below for Anthony's debut feature film, *Sidewalk Traffic,* which he wrote and directed. The film is available for rent/purchase on iTunes, Amazon, and most VOD outlets.

Subscribe

Get the podcast and listen to the show of ideas, not attitude, on the go.

Related Shows:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowWhy should we allow even the worst, most odious speech? Bob asks Anthony Fisher.Last time writer and filmmaker* Anthony L. Fisher joined the show, he exposed the mysterious death of a 20-year-old confidential informant. His Reason TV documentary and article were later picked up by 60 Minutes, and led many to rethink the role of confidential informants in the criminal justice system. Anthony also covered the Occupy Wall Street protests back in 2011, when it was unclear what the movement stood for or where it was heading. In a column for the Daily Beast, Anthony brings his characteristic clarity and nuance to bear on the anti-fascist protesters – aka "Antifa" – that have made recent headlines. Between Nazi white supremacists and anti-fascists (aka “Antifa”), Anthony is adamant that the former possess the more odious ideology, and are responsible for far more victims than the latter. However, this does not justify the acceptance of indiscriminate violence displayed by Antifa at recent protests and rallies. Anthony notes that violent, anarchic tactics have historically bolstered far-right elements. This suggests non-violent resistance is still the best option against a rising tide of xenophobia in the United States and elsewhere. This Sunday, Anthony will take your calls on the disturbing glorification of violence by some intellectuals, and the watering down of terms like “fascist” to include individuals who merely disagree with left-wing orthodoxy. When anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is labelled a fascist, the result is a poisoned public discourse. Can we recover civil dialogue in the midst of such intellectual laziness? Bob and Anthony break down the differences between alt-right, neoreactionary, and outright fascist/white supremacist groups.noRethinking Pax Americana with John GlaserCato InstituteForeign PolicyBob ZadekSun, 01 Oct 2017 17:32:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/9/28/rethinking-pax-americana-with-john-glaser53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59cd3139a803bb22e963c762Did Trump’s “get tough” rhetoric at the U.N. make us more or less safe?We’re living through the longest period of peace the modern world has ever known, so why all the hysteria of late? John Glaser, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, says it’s past time to start closing many of the 800 U.S. military bases around the world, and retool America’s strategy for deterring threats. He argues that the current saber rattling with Iran and North Korea represent the consequences of decades of overly-expansionist interventions. The idea of a “Pax Americana,” or the pacifying influence of American military dominance, has been around since the beginning of the Cold War. It has led us to make compromises with brutal dictators to maintain bases near perceived threats, and continues to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Worse, the alleged deterrent effect of a hegemonic military power may be an illusion. In a recent Cato policy paper*, Glaser persuasively argues that certain countries, which might otherwise feel neutrally towards the U.S., end up feeling threatened, and ramp up their military spending accordingly. Did Trump’s “get tough” rhetoric at the U.N. make us more or less safe?

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowWithdrawing from Overseas BasesWhy a forward-deployed military posture is unnecessary.noFederalism and the Flat Tax: The Austin Petersen PlanBig GovernmentConstitutionFederalismBob ZadekSun, 24 Sep 2017 20:25:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/9/21/federalism-and-the-flat-tax-the-austin-petersen-plan53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59c41c50c027d88718f364f8A libertarian until recently, Austin Petersen earned his reputation as a
provocative producer and commentator, who gave Gary Johnson a run for his
money in seeking the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination.UPDATE: A previous version of this post said that Austin Petersen is in favor of Trump's border wall, which he is not. Petersen's Twitter feed made reference to "building a wall around the welfare state," which is quite distinct and compatible with the libertarian position.

Back in 2015, U.S. Representative Mark Meadows took a major political risk to stand on his North Carolina constituents’ principles. He filed a motion to vacate the speaker chair held by John Boehner. Members of the House Freedom Caucus like Meadows have routinely been accused of dividing the Republican Party by holding fast to radical ideas, like cutting the $20 trillion deficit. Austin Petersen – a 2018 U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri – looks to join the ranks of Meadows, et al. in returning the party to fiscal sanity and constitutional principles. A libertarian until recently, Petersen earned his reputation as a provocative media producer and commentator, who gave Gary Johnson a run for his money in seeking the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination. His plan for resolving the GOP’s identity crisis invokes federalism – the principle that states reserve powers not granted to the Federal Government – and a flat tax to spur growth and shrink government. For this, he will no doubt be vilified by moderate Republicans as much as by his actual opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill. Petersen joins Bob this Sunday (9/24, 8-9am PT) to discuss his stance on these issues, along with those where he disagrees with the Libertarian Party, such as the non-aggression principle. You can follow Austin on Twitter at @AP4Liberty, and hear him live, this Sunday, on the show of ideas not attitude. Call in with your questions at (424) BOB-SHOW.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowA libertarian until recently, Austin Petersen earned his reputation as a provocative producer and commentator, who gave Gary Johnson a run for his money in seeking the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination.Back in 2015, U.S. Representative Mark Meadows took a major political risk to stand on his North Carolina constituents’ principles. He filed a motion to vacate the speaker chair held by John Boehner. Members of the House Freedom Caucus like Meadows have routinely been accused of dividing the Republican Party by holding fast to radical ideas, like cutting the $20 trillion deficit. Austin Petersen – a 2018 U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri – looks to join the ranks of Meadows, et al. in returning the party to fiscal sanity and constitutional principles. A libertarian until recently, Petersen earned his reputation as a provocative media producer and commentator, who gave Gary Johnson a run for his money in seeking the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination. His plan for resolving the GOP’s identity crisis invokes federalism – the principle that states reserve powers not granted to the Federal Government – and a flat tax to spur growth and shrink government. For this, he will no doubt be vilified by moderate Republicans as much as by his actual opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill. Petersen joins Bob to discuss his stance on these issues, along with those where he disagrees with the Libertarian Party, such as the non-aggression principle. You can follow Austin on Twitter at @AP4Liberty, and hear him now on the show of ideas not attitude.noMichael Strong on Creating a World in Which All Humanity FlourishesCapitalismEducationEntrepreneurshipInnovationCharlie DeistSun, 17 Sep 2017 16:28:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/9/15/michael-strong-on-creating-a-world-in-which-all-humanity-flourishes53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59bbff9dcf81e06134e69119Are prosperity and true spirituality opposed, or can entrepreneurs teach us
something about what is required to live a meaningful life?The year is 1710, and the Industrial Revolution is taking off in the West, creating the world's first middle class, and giving rise to prosperous colonial outposts on the American frontier. But the colonies' new-found wealth has its critics. Cotton Mather, a Puritan minister at Harvard University, laments that "Religion brought forth prosperity, and the daughter destroyed the mother." Puritanism's offshoots – the Protestant work ethic, and arguably, the prosperity gospel – still drive the biggest engine of material wealth the world has ever seen, and Harvard types are still suspicious of its fruit. Joseph Schumpeter, the Austrian economist behind the term "creative destruction," predicted that intellectuals – who don't labor or trade to earn their income – would undermine the capitalist system and shackle the entrepreneur. Michael Strong – an intellectual and an entrepreneur, as well as critic and champion of the market – is an exception. Strong has founded multiple innovative charter schools based on Montessori, Socratic and entrepreneurial principles, written books on education and entrepreneurship, and co-founded Conscious Capitalism, Inc., with Whole Foods CEO John Mackey to promote entrepreneurial solutions to world problems. Voices like Strong's are especially important as the West loses faith in the very ideas that brought about its prosperity – just when these ideas are needed most in the developing world. Michael joins guest hosts Charlie Deist (producer of The Bob Zadek Show) and Joe Quirk (President of The Seasteading Institute) to distinguish between valid critiques of historical capitalism and dogmatic repression of the entrepreneurial spirit. Strong will also propose his biggest idea yet for unleashing human potential – the startup city.

RELATED SHOWS

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowEducator/Entrepreneur Michael Strong joins guest hosts Charlie Deist (producer of The Bob Zadek Show) and Joe Quirk (President of The Seasteading Institute) to distinguish between valid critiques of historical capitalism and dogmatic repression of the entrepreneurial spirit.The year is 1710, and the Industrial Revolution is taking off in the West, creating the world's first middle class, and giving rise to prosperous colonial outposts on the American frontier. But the colonies' new-found wealth has its critics. Cotton Mather, a Puritan minister at Harvard University, laments that "Religion brought forth prosperity, and the daughter destroyed the mother." Puritanism's offshoots – the Protestant work ethic, and arguably, the prosperity gospel – still drive the biggest engine of material wealth the world has ever seen, and Harvard types are still suspicious of its fruit. Joseph Schumpeter, the Austrian economist behind the term "creative destruction," predicted that intellectuals – who don't labor or trade to earn their income – would undermine the capitalist system and shackle the entrepreneur. Michael Strong – an intellectual and an entrepreneur, as well as critic and champion of the market – is an exception. Strong has founded multiple innovative charter schools based on Montessori, Socratic and entrepreneurial principles, written books on education and entrepreneurship, and co-founded Conscious Capitalism, Inc., with Whole Foods CEO John Mackey to promote entrepreneurial solutions to world problems. Voices like Strong's are especially important as the West loses faith in the very ideas that brought about its prosperity – just when these ideas are needed most in the developing world. Michael joins guest hosts Charlie Deist (producer of The Bob Zadek Show) and Joe Quirk (President of The Seasteading Institute) to distinguish between valid critiques of historical capitalism and dogmatic repression of the entrepreneurial spirit. Strong will also propose his biggest idea yet for unleashing human potential – the startup city.noLeviathan in Chains: Michael Munger on Public Choice EconomicsConstitutionDemocracyBest OfBob ZadekSun, 10 Sep 2017 15:11:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/9/6/michael-munger-on-democracy-in-chains-public-choice-economics-ywxsb53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59b2b30abce17645d6368fe0"Democracy is and must be a balancing of … the rights of minorities, and …
the ability of the majority to have its way within the domain established
as “political” by the constitution.Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains purports to be a bombshell of a book. Praised by NPR, her tale of how a southern academic single-handedly masterminded a plan to subvert American democracy is perfectly crafted to inflame and entertain progressive partisans. MacLean's conspiracy theory traces the “radical right’s stealth plan,” and insinuates the central bogeyman, Professor James M. Buchanan, saying “I can fight this [democracy] . . . I want to fight this.” The bad news for MacLean’s fawning reviewers is that Buchanan never said this. MacLean made it up (or at least made it sound like he said it). Vox.com delivers a death blow to the book’s premise of the shadowy origins of public choice economics – a common-sense branch of the dismal science that explains government failures in terms of bad incentives facing politicians and bureaucrats. Professor Michael Munger is both MacLean's colleague at Duke and an expert on public choice. He joins the show this Sunday to break down Buchanan’s real legacy – his Nobel-Prize winning contributions to economic science – and to help Bob understand the bizarre progressive reaction to his work. One of public choice’s central insights, and the theme of Bob’s new book, Secret Sauce, is that democracy must be limited by a constitution to protect the rights of minorities and individuals from infringement by the majority. Ironically, it is progressives who can best utilize Buchanan's insights to resist a power-grab by our democratically-elected president and congress. Don’t miss the autopsy of MacLean’s failed attempt at revisionist history (or “historical fiction,” to put it in Michael's more charitable terms).

Related Shows:

Check out Bob's new book of edited interviews with your favorite libertarian thinkers, including Don Boudreaux, Ilya Somin, Todd Zywicki, Clark Neily III, Alex Nowrasteh and others. It's the story of the American Founding, and the ingredients that made America great, in one concise volume.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowA new book purports to show the shadowy origins of Public Choice economics. But is it true?"Democracy is and must be a balancing of … the rights of minorities, and … the ability of the majority to have its way within the domain established as “political” by the constitution."no16 Years Later – the Forever War Rages OnForeign PolicyBob ZadekSun, 03 Sep 2017 21:19:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/8/31/16-years-later-the-forever-war-rages-on53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59a87920d55b41845faf75d0Lt. Colonel Anthony Alfidi brings his insiders perspective to bear on
America's longest war, as President Trump promises an increase in force.
Will this bring decisive victory or more of the same vicious cycle of
violence and retribution?What President Bush began, and President Obama failed to end, Trump now proposes to extend. The War in Afghanistan is the single longest military conflict in U.S. history – just beating out the 14-year-long Morro Rebellion – leading some to dub it “the Forever War.” Generals who were initially optimistic supporters of nation-building have lowered their expectations, and anticipate decades of involvement just to keep dangerous groups within the region at bay. The rationale for increasing troop presence is that more force will lead to a decisive victory. But repeating the claim that we are going to “win bigly” does not suggest a real strategy that distinguishes Trump’s policy from his two unsuccessful predecessors. Anthony Alfidi is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve who has been to Afghanistan in uniform. He joins Bob in studio this Sunday to offer his perspective on the prospects for an eventual troop withdrawal. The country’s problems go beyond its reputation as a terrorist breeding ground. It has one of the most corrupt governments in the world, high rates of illiteracy (especially among women), and other barriers to effective political and economic development. It seems reasonable to wonder whether U.S. drone strikes and drug raids are helping. Anthony does, however, think there is hope in the form of the rising generation, which is increasingly educated. Tune in to hear how the idea of generational cycles and the “fourth turning” could signal a positive resurgence for Afghanistan.

Subscribe

Download the podcast of this episode, and hear past shows on iTunes, Stitcher, etc.

Related Shows:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowLt. Col. Anthony Alfidi explains why the U.S. is having such a difficult time in Afghanistan.noRichard Epstein on Climate ChangeEnvironmentalismRegulatory AgenciesPresidential PowerBest OfBob ZadekSun, 13 Aug 2017 23:30:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/8/13/climate-science-guiding-star-or-slave-to-ideology53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:598cec84b8a79bbc2042f8e3A new report from 13 Federal Agencies says Americans may already be
experiencing the impact of climate change. [Read More...]A new "state of the climate" report from 13 Federal agencies says Americans may already be experiencing the impacts of climate change. Meanwhile, President Trump is doubling down in defense of his withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate accord. This may have been a prudent decision, but Trump's reasons for ignoring the accord's emissions reductions goals are based on the same flawed logic that he's used to promote protectionist trade policy. Namely, the President says he stands for "Pittsburgh, not Paris" – suggesting that what’s good for one (environmentally or economically) is bad for the other. In June, Professor Richard Epstein corrected Trump’s zero-sum mindset on trade. The Professor returns to the show with an economic analysis of why the Paris agreement is a bad deal. Bob will pose a thought experiment to highlight the core principles (or lack thereof) behind typical environmental regulations. What are our obligations to future generations when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions? Can we analyze environmental externalities within the framework of the libertarian non-aggression principle, or is the cause-and-effect too flimsy to inflict damages on the biggest emitters? Tune in for another edition of Advanced Topics in Libertarianism with "The Libertarian” himself.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowProfessor Epstein provides an economic analysis and ample dose of (un)common sense on climate change.Professor Richard Epstein notes that the so-called "Social Cost of Carbon" is a misleading concept, that ignores basic economics. Meanwhile, climate change skeptics are referred to given the ugly label "deniers" to associate them with Holocaust deniers. He joins Bob to discuss this tragedy of the chattering classes and clear the air on CO2 emissions. noThe War on Chinese Restaurants with Gabriel ChinCato InstituteCivil LibertiesEntrepreneurshipFree EnterpriseUnionsBob ZadekSun, 06 Aug 2017 16:28:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/8/3/the-war-on-chinese-restaurants-with-gabriel-chin53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59834f2cf5e2313c1de885faChinese discrimination in the form of economic protectionism is a major
blight on American history. Jack Chin reveals the full story in this time
capsule edition of the Bob Zadek Show.Here’s a fun fact: there are more Chinese restaurants in the United States than there are McDonald’s, KFC’s and Burger Kings combined. No doubt this is partly a result of the dedicated entrepreneurship of Chinese immigrants and the American appetite for sweet and sour pork, but there is also a story of economic discrimination behind the flourishing of dim sum dens, chop suey canteens, and Szechuan saloons. Because of the prejudicial hiring environment at the turn of the 20th century, restaurants and launderettes were among the only sectors in which Chinese immigrants to the United States could get a foothold. Even as self-employed restaurateurs, Chinese Americans faced fierce resistance from unionized competition, who hid behind a smokescreen of moral panic and virulently racist propaganda. Gabriel “Jack” Chin is a legal scholar and Law Professor at UC Davis, where he teaches Immigration Law, Criminal Procedure, and Race and Law. Chin recently co-authored an eye-opening article titled “The War on Chinese Restaurants” for Cato’s quarterly journal Regulation. He documents this sorry episode in American history, in which states and local governments persistently discriminated against Chinese immigrants – including bans on white women entering their restaurants – even after the courts declared such policies unconstitutional. The market demand for Chinese food eventually won out, but only after two pieces of federal legislation excluding Chinese immigrants. Listen in and call in with your questions for Bob and Jack at any time during the show: (424) BOB-SHOW.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowLearn about this dark, forgotten chapter of American history.noDr. Vernon Smith on Adam Smith 101Central PlanningCrony CapitalismIndependent InstituteBob ZadekFri, 28 Jul 2017 18:11:48 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/7/30/dr-vernon-smith-on-adam-smith-10153615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:597b5f389f7456060965d078Nobel laureate Vernon Smith joins the show, live from Newport Beach, to
make free market missionaries and explain his groundbreaking work in
experimental economics.Growing up on a farm in Wichita, Kansas in the 1930s, experimental economist and Nobel laureate Vernon Smith developed a curiosity for how things work – from plowing fields to hunting rabbits. In the 1940s, he thought he’d arrived when Boeing paid him to do electrical work on WWII fighter jets. However, this was just the beginning of a lifelong intellectual adventure and career spent "under the hood" of a system more complex than the most advanced aircraft: markets. Economists have spent centuries developing Adam Smith’s insight on the human drive to “truck, barter and exchange” into a rigorous discipline with predictive power. Coming from Caltech, Vernon Smith applied his training in hard science to a question that had eluded economists until his laboratory experiments demonstrated what Adam Smith had originally intuited. The elder Smith hypothesized that self interest was a sufficient force for markets to "calculate" prices that result in the largest gains from trade. In 2002, Vernon won the Nobel Prize in economics for validating the market's capacity to determine efficient equilibrium prices, despite the individual traders' incomplete information about production costs and the value of a good to consumers. Simulating market conditions with computer software and human participants, Vernon showed how the collective action of buyers and sellers – possessing only knowledge of their own circumstances – resulted in gradual bargaining to an efficient price. Bob is privileged to have Vernon in studio for the full hour to explain the importance of price signals – a key component of Adam Smith’s invisible hand – and to make modern missionaries for free markets. Listen in to hear from one of the greatest living economic minds, and call in with your questions to (424) BOB-SHOW.

]]>Dr. Vernon Smith on Adam Smith 101Is There Such a Thing As Too Much Democracy?Secret SauceBob ZadekThu, 27 Jul 2017 17:19:32 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/7/11/free-new-ebook-finds-fault-with-too-much-democracy-crk5z-8577z53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:597a2091cf81e057707d0f0dA mashup of 8 top historians and Constitutional scholars – interviewed on
The Bob Zadek Show – tell the hidden story of how American democracy lost
its balance, and how to restore it to its proper place.

No single person could write a definitive account of America's founding period, much less apply its lessons to the present political situation in a coherent way. However, when seven top scholars are interviewed on their respective specialties in the legal, political and economic history of the United States, the result is a simple and zesty recipe for renewed American democracy. The Bob Zadek Show is California's longest running libertarian talk show, and has featured discussions with hundreds of thinkers on the ideas underpinning a free society. Secret Sauce: The Founders' Original Recipe for Limited American Democracy features edited, condensed transcripts of the best of the best of Bob's interviews. Read about the squabbles and compromises that almost tanked the early Republic, and learn how we can restore the original safeguards against all-powerful Federal Government.

Everyone feels that the great American experiment in democracy has turned sour, but no one can pinpoint the source of our ills. Trump supporters with "Make America Great Again" hats demonize the free trade and liberal immigration policies that have been at the bedrock of America's greatness for more than two centuries, while "the Resistance" marches for expansions of federal power that would make the Founders' heads spin.

If the cognitive dissonance hasn't gotten to you yet, try spending more time reading the comments on your friends' political Facebook posts. We are a nation divided, in search of a shared story that unites our country's complex, imperfect origins with our continued aspirations for "a more perfect union." In the popular mythology, one sacrosanct idea stands hallowed above all others – democracy. What gets lost in this framing are the Founders' deep divisions and wariness of pure democracy. Hence their decision to form a constitutional republic, with multiple checks and balances on all kinds of tyranny. Secret Sauce shows how democracy can prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of few, or enable it.

Featuring:

• Donald J. Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek• Thomas Fleming, author of over 50 fiction and non-fiction history titles• William Maurer & Clark Neily III of the Institute for Justice• Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute• Ilya Somin & Todd Zywicki of George Mason University's economics department and law school

Join our mailing list and get a free PDF copy.

Name

Name

First Name
Last Name

Email Address *

Thank you! If you don't receive a copy within 24 hours, email producer@bobzadek.com.

]]>Is There Such a Thing As Too Much Democracy?Libertarianism vs. Center Right: Common Ground and Fault LinesBig GovernmentGovt. Health InsuranceBob ZadekThu, 20 Jul 2017 21:43:08 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/7/20/joyce-cordi-of-reimagine-america-on-government-dysfunction53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59711f30f14aa1732799d935Joyce Cordi, host of 860 AM's Reimagine America, joins Bob to discuss the
problems with government health insurance, and what centrist reform might
look like.Washington’s dysfunction is reaching epic new proportions in Congress's current repeal-and-replace debate. Last week, Will Wilkinson noted the GOP’s dilemma of wanting to use small government rhetoric while still pandering to their constituents and their favored welfare programs. Is there a solution that balances sensible, limited government principles with popular support? Joyce Cordi believes there is, and that the answer to this and many intractable political problems lies in friendly bi-partisan engagement and sensible centrist reforms with a conservative bent. Joyce hosts the “Reimagine America” radio program – a virtual town hall on 860 AM, the Answer, and brings an extensive business background to bear on the major issues dividing the American body politic. She likens government to a big, clunky business in need of better, leaner management, and a clearer vision of 21st century governance. She joins Bob to debate why health care reform is stalled, and what it would take to avert the looming disaster of ObamaCare’s insurance cost death spiral. She argues that the new health insurance entitlement is here to stay, but that government need not control every aspect of the healthcare industry. Catch Joyce Cordi every Saturday from 12-1pm, hosting her show – Reimagine America – on 860 AM, The Answer, and don’t miss this special episode of the show of ideas, not attitude.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoWill Wilkinson: G.O.P. Should Embrace the Welfare StateBig GovernmentGovernment Health InsuranBob ZadekSun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/7/14/will-wilkinson-gop-should-embrace-welfare-state53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5968e3b720099e822b3c8fa4Republicans looking to repeal and replace Obamacare are in a dilemma of their own making this week. They have branded themselves as small government defenders, promising reductions in taxes and subsidies, despite knowledge that most of their constituents oppose cuts to their favored welfare programs. This may seem like an intractable problem to the typical conservative, but Will Wilkinson – Vice President for Policy at the Niskanen Center – offers a lifeline to a struggling G.O.P. in a recent NY Times article [For Trump and G.O.P., the Welfare State Shouldn’t Be the Enemy]. He notes a paradox the core of limited government philosophy – as an empirical matter, liberty seems to be maximized when the total size of government, measured in spending, is larger. The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom confirms that hybrid high-tax, low-regulation policies are working for some of the freest countries on earth. Behind this argument is a new wave of libertarian thought – the intellectual offspring of F.A. Hayek – that incorporates advances in institutional and experimental economics to overcome progressive objections to markets and private property. Wilkinson and the Niskanen Center are pushing a new frontier that could give Republicans space to actually govern. Why the NY Times is offering Republicans such sage advice is a question that will likely remain unanswered, but Wilkinson will take your calls and try to persuade you that his proposed “liberal”-tarian mutation is evolution in the right direction.

What happens when we start to think of rights as something granted to us by government, rather than our creator? The Founders created a constitutional republic to protect those rights, and limit the number of rights we are required to give up to an absolute minimum.

Find out why Bob dreads the day we live in a democracy:

Related Shows:

]]>Miron vs. Sessions on the Drug WarVictimless CrimesLibertarianCivil LibertiesBob ZadekSun, 09 Jul 2017 22:11:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/7/6/miron-vs-sessions-on-the-drug-war53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:595eb5b115d5dbe05ceb5407Attorney General Jeff Sessions is re-escalating the War on Drugs. Harvard
Professor and author of Libertarianism A to Z points out the folly of this
misguided effort.In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Attorney General Jeff Sessions inadvertently argued the case libertarians have been making about the War on Drugs for decades. Sessions observed, correctly, that the black market for drugs is inherently violent. He failed to see that the majority of violence stems from the illegality of the market – not from the products themselves. Prohibition, the failed experiment that never completely ended, showed signs of waning over the past 15 years. This was thanks in part to the work of economists like Milton Friedman (among the first to call for the legalization of all drugs) and more recently, Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard professor and prominent libertarian voice for ending the War on Drugs. Sessions, however, seems determined to bring it back into full force. Unfortunately, it is Sessions (and not the expert economists) who holds the levers of federal power. Professor Miron’s key point on prohibition is based on the same principle behind all libertarian thought: drug use is an individual decision, and government has no right to interfere. He has written four books including "Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition" and "Libertarianism, from A to Z." Bob and Jeff look at the potential impact of Sessions' re-escalation of the War on Drugs, following a string of new state-based experiments in marijuana legalization and decriminalization.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoA Libertarian Infrastructure PlanCato InstituteFederalismPrivatizationBob ZadekThu, 29 Jun 2017 22:47:18 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/6/29/a-libertarian-infrastructure-plan53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:595558341b10e3ee8f7dfa71It’s been called Friedman’s Law, and it holds almost as constant as any law of physics:

It costs any government at least twice as much to do something as it costs anyone else.

But what's to be done when some amount of government spending is inevitable? People often bring up roads and infrastructure as the counterpoint to the libertarian injunction to “privatize it!” Chris Edwards – editor of the Cato Institute’sDownsizingGovernment.org – says that infrastructure isn't quite the exception government’s cheerleaders make it out to be. In a recent policy bulletin,Who Owns U.S. Infrastructure?, Edwards shows how the Federal Government can decrease its involvement in roads, bridges, ports and dams. The majority of infrastructure is already owned and operated by the private sector, with the next largest chunk owned by state and local governments – as it should be. “Asset ownership conveys responsibility;” Edwards says, “federal intervention diffuses it.” He joins Bob to discuss the true state of U.S. infrastructure (rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated) and the hands-off policies that can accelerate the right kind of infrastructure at the right price.

If it weren’t for the all-caps giveaway at the end, the above tweet from President Trump’s could just as easily have come from his predecessor in the Oval Office, or even Bernie Sanders. To many, the statement appears perfectly sound. After all, we expect fairness in our personal dealings with others; our deals with global trading partners would seem to be no exception. Senior Hoover Institution Fellow and NYU Law Professor Richard Epstein says that fairness should guide our trade policy, but that the classical liberal view of fairness happens to align with free trade. Fraud and coercion are certainly unfair practices, but mutually beneficial trade among willing buyers and sellers is not only fair, but is the very source of our wealth and prosperity. Epstein is known for his erudite commentary on law, politics and economics. He recently discussed Trump’s wrong-headed approach to trade on his Hoover Podcast The Libertarian. In this episode, the Professor is in. Richard and Bob will discuss the threat of an escalating trade war, and the value of free trade in keeping state and federal policymakers in line when it comes to domestic policies that would harm U.S. competitiveness.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoGoldwater Institute & the Right to Earn a LivingLocal GovernmentLicensingEntrepreneurshipBob ZadekSun, 18 Jun 2017 23:20:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/6/14/goldwater-institute-the-right-to-earn-a-living53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5941c488ebbd1a6378386516Vacation rentals are under threat. Thankfully, the Goldwater Institute is
doing something about it. The infamous case of Kelo v. City of New London turned Susette Kelo – owner of New London’s “little pink house” – into the poster child for victims of land-grabbing local governments. Her case may have failed to persuade the Supreme Court, but it set off a wave of outrage and reforms at the level of the states to prevent similar eminent domain abuses. The Goldwater Institute is Arizona’s leading free-market think-tank. It has been pivotal in advancing private property protections (among other freedoms) for the citizens of the Grand Canyon State. Following on the successful passage of the Private Property Rights Protection Act (aka Arizona Prop. 207) in 2006, Goldwater Institute Vice President of Litigation Tim Sandefur and Executive Vice President Christina Sandefur co-authored the Property Ownership Fairness Act to serve as a model for other states. The Institute wrote another law to protect the rights of those renting out their homes on the sites like Airbnb. Vacation rental owners are being targeted by regulators, who need a scapegoat to blame for rising rents (more likely due to excessive regulation). Tim joins the show to talk about the issues that led the Institute to write the act, and to discuss other topics related to the right to earn a living, and a potential solution to occupational licensing.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowTim Sandefur tells how the right to earn a living is under threat in many states and locales, and how the Goldwater Institute is pushing back.noJames Kirchick on the End of EuropeDemocracyForeign PolicyGlobalizationBob ZadekSun, 11 Jun 2017 17:57:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/6/9/james-kirchick-on-the-end-of-europe53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:593a3358e4fcb52e484fd1d5Is Europe over?“Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence.”

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize lecture, 1970

For the past 70 years, Europe has proven a stable demonstration of the values of humanism, democracy, free trade, and solidarity – in a word, of liberalism. This experiment, supported by American leadership worldwide, gave rise to the hope of ever-increasing cooperation and trade among peaceful democratic nations. The European Union was supposed to spur this vision of unified diversity along. Columnist and foreign correspondent James Kirchick predicts the rapid demise of that dream, and vividly documents the beginning of the decline in his book,The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues and the Coming Dark Ages. Kirchick has reported on the cascade of illiberal movements sweeping across Europe – from Great Britain to Hungary – all under the specter of creeping Russian aggression. This week, British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – the same man who touted Hugo Chavez as a champion of the Venezuelan people – celebrates his far-left party’s parliamentary victories. Meanwhile, extremists of all stripes are gaining traction across the continent. The current alternatives to the E.U. seem grim, but is its survival essential for Europe to have a prosperous, peaceful and tolerant future? James joins the show for the full hour and takes calls.

Links:

[Amazon] The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues and the Coming Dark Ages (Dec. 2016)

Related Shows:

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowIs Europe over? Foreign correspondent and Tablet Magazine contributor James Kirchick looks at the many troubling signs on the radar for the continent – long a home of peace and stability.noIs There a War on Cops?UnionsCivil LibertiesBob ZadekSun, 28 May 2017 23:58:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/5/28/is-there-a-war-on-cops53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:59276fb52994caf3ee408bf8Heather Mac Donald gets silenced by campus mobs for trying to express her
ideas from *The War on Cops.* She has data to back up her perspective. She
joins Bob for a free exchange of ideas on the criminal justice system, and
the power and pitfalls of proactive policing.Whatever your opinion is of law enforcement, the Black Lives Matter movement, or the root causes of violent crime, you can't claim to be informed without reading Heather Mac Donald's latest book, The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe.The stories and statistics brought to light by the Manhattan Institute Fellow go against much of what liberal elites and civil libertarians alike wish to believe. The prevailing narrative goes like this: inner-city violence and dysfunction result from a combination of unnecessary laws, a racially-biased legal system, and police that routinely violate the rights of the citizens they're supposed to protect. Against this narrative, Mac Donald brings evidence of a surge in violent crime – primarily victimizing African Americans – following a rising tide of anti-police sentiment among major media and politicians. Mac Donald channels former FBI Director James Comey in claiming that the fear of false accusation has caused police departments to dial back the "proactive policing" that has been credited with reducing past violent crime waves. Her speeches on college campuses have been shut down by the usual suspects (student mobs inflamed by the "threat" of a free exchange of ideas) leaving the strongest counter-counter-narratives to Mac Donald's counter-narrative unexpressed. Mac Donald joins the show to defend the police from unsupported charges of racial bias, and Bob takes calls to test the thesis of The War on Cops against a strict interpretation of the Constitution's civil liberty guarantees.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowBlack Lives Matter, War on Cops, law enforcementnoHow the EPA Violated the Clean Air ActEnvironmentalismRegulatory AgenciesTransportationBest OfBob ZadekSun, 21 May 2017 21:10:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/5/17/epa-violates-the-clean-air-act53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:591cbba05016e193967194ccTed Hadzi-Antich, Senior Attorney at the Texas Public Policy Foundation,
says the EPA is breaking the law and bypassing the experts.Ask a Californian what’s so special about the Golden State – you'll hear about our beaches, our redwood forests, and our high tech and entertainment hubs. 30 years ago, you'd have heard about our smog. Today's small business owners, however, will tell you about our "unique" environmental regulations. California’s emissions laws are the strictest in the nation, thanks to an exemption from the EPA’s Clean Air Act that allows special vehicle standards, as long as they're at least as strict as federal standards. The Clean Air Act of 1970 requires the EPA to submit new rules to an expert oversight panel, which it failed to do for new recommendations by the California Air Resources Board. While the Air Resources Board may have once been needed to address a crisis, its new rules go too far (modern diesel engines emit far less exhaust than engines from even 15 years ago). Ted Hadzi-Antich is the senior attorney for the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for the American Future, and is on the team challenging the EPA's violation of the law. He stands for thousands of small businesses that would be devastated by the restrictions on diesel vehicles, while big corporations thrive based on their ability to comply. Ted joined the show to clear the air for us Californians, and to give an overview of the EPA's regulatory overreach nationwide.

]]>The Bob Zadek ShowEnvironmental regulationsnoJuries: The Other Fourth BranchAmendmentsCivil LibertiesConstitutionBob ZadekMon, 15 May 2017 01:32:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/5/14/juries-the-other-fourth-branch53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5915109bd482e9c5b0d12413Do you have information on the whereabouts of the missing American jury?
Call (424) BOB-SHOW with all leads.This show has repeatedly drawn attention to administrative agencies – the so-called “fourth branch of government” – and their unconstitutional take-over of legislative and judicial functions. Before revisiting this troubling erosion of checks and balances, we have some more hopeful news. Suja Thomas, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois Law School, speaks and writes of a different “fourth branch” that was actually intended by the founders: juries. The American tradition of jury trials, borrowed from English common law, is known around the world as an exceptional feature of our government "of the people, by the people and for the people." Thomas Jefferson said, "The jury is the greatest anchor ever devised by human kind for holding a government to the principles of its constitution." But with just 4% of criminal cases and around 1% of civil cases actually making it to a jury trial, this check on the other three branches of government has clearly been weakened. Bob and his producer, Charlie Deist, discuss her book, *The Missing American Jury: Restoring the Fundamental Constitutional Role of the Civil, Criminal, and Grand Juries* along with the classic movie, 12 Angry Men, and the controversial idea of jury nullification.

Subscribe]]>The Bob Zadek ShowJuriesnoOpioids and the Agony of the American Health Care ActGovt. Health InsuranceBob ZadekSun, 30 Apr 2017 20:31:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/4/28/opioids-and-the-agony-of-the-american-health-care-act53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5903a68e17bffcb1ab07d3b2A general surgeon explains what's wrong with the Republican's most recent
attempt at "repeal and replace."Ronald Reagan once quipped that the 9 most terrifying words are “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.” With the Trump administration’s recent announcement of its plan to crack down on the pain pill epidemic, we may soon grow to fear the words “I’m from the federal opioid commission, and I’m here to help.” Meanwhile, the Republicans first stab at repealing and replacing Obamacare revealed a fundamental lack of seriousness. The failed American Health Care Act retained the central mandates from Obamacare that are leading to the “death spiral” of growing costs and shrinking options for insurance customers. If all of this bad news is giving you a headache, you’ll want to be sure to listen to this show. Dr. Jeffrey Singer, a general surgeon and regular guest on The Bob Zadek Show, helps Bob dissect the unintended consequences of government intervention in the sacred relationship between doctor and patient. In Arizona, where Dr. Singer practices, limits on prescription pain medication have already made it harder to optimally assist patients recovering from surgery. As government takes over greater control of the healthcare industry, we can expect less of a role for doctor discretion, and more decisions being made by bureaucrats without our best interests in mind.
SubscribeLibertarian Radio RSS

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoVenezuela on the Brink with Fergus HodgsonCentral PlanningSocialismBob ZadekSun, 23 Apr 2017 18:34:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/4/19/venezuela-on-the-brink53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:58f7acb9cd0f68c0d753d81bHistory is being written in Venezuela, as the chavista government attempts
to drag the rest of Latin America down the road of 21st-century socialism.It's rarely good news when Latin American politics makes headlines. For those who haven't been monitoring the situation in Venezuela, the "chavista" revolution that began in the 90’s has blossomed into a full-blown meltdown. Think 20th-century socialism was bad? Wait until you hear about Hugo-Chavez-inspired “21st-century socialism,” complete with hyperinflation, widespread famine, and narco-trafficking leaders bent on leading the country further into ruin. Chavez may be gone, but his legacy of misery lives on. Fergus Hodgson, founder of Antigua International, is a prolific writer and global citizen who has been observing Venezuelan politics for years, and has spent time in numerous Latin American countries. Fergus believes we must examine the underlying ideals of revolution in Latin America to understand why the situation is so desperate. Many Venezuelans are seeing through Nicolas Maduro’s failed policies, but the United Socialist Party of Venezuela is clinging to the dictatorship and blocking democratic paths to reform. With protests growing in size and intensity, history is being written. The coming days could determine Latin America's course for years to come.
Get the Podcast

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoWhose Free Speech? Our Free Speech!Civil LibertiesBob ZadekSun, 16 Apr 2017 23:43:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/4/16/whose-free-speech-our-free-speech53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:58eebba1d1758e9c135809e6LA community college student fights for his rights to free speech on
campus. Last week, Andrei Illarionov warned us about the subtle disinformation tactics the Russian government uses to undermine trust in institutions like democracy and the rule of law. Accordingly, there has never been a greater need to educate the next generation in the founding principles of our country and its 240 year-old Constitution. Kevin Shaw was doing his part, handing out Spanish-language constitutions to his fellow community college students at Pierce College in Los Angeles, when a campus administrator informed him that he would have to relocate to a 616-square-foot “Free Speech Zone.” Shaw knew his rights, and got in touch with the only organization that knows how to fight back: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Since FIRE filed a lawsuit against the LA Community College School District, the L.A. Times has come out with an editorial in support of Shaw and his right to free speech at Pierce. Marieke Tuthill-Beck Coon is an attorney with FIRE, who joins the show to discuss the case. Assuming they win the lawsuit, FIRE will be one step closer to its goal in the “Million Voices” litigation campaign to free one million student voices from unconstitutional speech codes nationwide. One big question looms: will these voices exercise their freedom of speech to help preserve the Republic?
Get the podcast

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoRussia Today (Yesterday & Tomorrow)Cato InstituteCentral PlanningCrony CapitalismForeign PolicyPrivatizationSocialismBest OfBob ZadekSun, 09 Apr 2017 21:11:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/4/9/russia-today-yesterday-tomorrow53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:58e6af1bd482e94a04a770d3Some viewed the fall of the Soviet Union as the beginning of “The End of
History.” Today's headlines remind us that history is not over. Russia's
aggressive imperialism in Ukraine and its meddling in the Middle East have
put it back at center stage. Some viewed the fall of the Soviet Union as the beginning of “The End of History.” The U.S. and its allies, it seemed, were ushering in an era of global liberal democracy. Today's headlines remind us that history is not over. Russia's aggressive imperialism in Ukraine and its meddling in the Middle East have put it back at center stage. The last 25 years of economic history in Russia are the backdrop to this foreign policy challenge to the West – a time in which the old guard “nomenklatura” gave up on the Soviet experiment and transferred economic ownership to a new set of political elites. This wasn’t anyone’s idea of a smooth transition to an independent democratic regime, but many free-market economists (including Milton Friedman) gladly offered advice on how to jumpstart Russia’s stagnant economy. Andrei Illarionov also served as an early advisor to President Putin – counseling sound monetary and fiscal policy – but resigned when it became clear how the new government was being run. Now a Senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and a key contributor to the Human Freedom Index, Andrei recently participated in a Cato symposium on what went wrong. He joins the show to describe the economic and political inner workings of the Putin government and the Russian oligarchy. What does economic freedom have to do with political freedom and foreign policy interventionism? A whole lot, it turns out.
SubscribeLibertarian Radio RSS

Step 2. Navigate back to the book page

Step 3. Scroll down to the "customer reviews" section

Click "write a review" button

Step 4. Leave a review and submit.

]]>Judge Gorsuch on the Hot SeatCato InstituteSupreme CourtBest OfBob ZadekSun, 26 Mar 2017 17:45:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/3/26/judge-gorsuch-on-the-hot-seat53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:58d409a515d5db9666c6fea1What kind of Judge is Neil Gorsuch?Following Justice Scalia's death last year, Republicans took a gamble with their #NoHearingsNoVote strategy, refusing to confirm any Supreme Court nominee for the remainder of the election year. Ilya Shapiro, Editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, defended this strategy on the show last May on the principle that the election should serve as a referendum on who would nominate the pivotal 9th member to the divided court. In something of a double surprise, Trump was elected, and almost immediately made good on the promise to select a judge from his list of 21 potential nominees. Since the start of Neil Gorsuch's Senate confirmation hearings, Shapiro has been on a media blitz, cutting through the "Kabuki theater" and interpreting the exchanges between the mild-mannered Colorado judge and his senatorial inquisitors (both friendly and unfriendly). He returns to examine how the rest of the process is likely to unfold, in light of Senator Chuck Schumer's promise to filibuster. Bob and Ilya also discuss what it means to be a judge "in the mold of Antonin Scalia," and how the founders' original intent still applies to the changed circumstances of modern times.
Get the PodcastLibertarian Radio RSS

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoLisa Snell on School Choice ExperimentsEducationReasonBob ZadekSun, 19 Mar 2017 22:22:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/3/19/lisa-snell-on-school-choice-experiments53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:58cb101d8419c202a3cf4862Jerry Brown thought we didn't need a Department of Education.Last month, Senate Democrats fell a single vote short of blocking the nomination of Betsy Devos to head the Department of Education. This revealed not only an unwise expenditure of political capital, but also the undue influence of teacher unions over the Party apparatus. While seemingly more controversial picks like Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Secretary of State Rex Tillerson glided through their hearings, it was Devos who became “Public Enemy #1.” Some perceive her support of educational choice as heralding a demotion of public schools and the unions that uphold their sacred status. Others argue that Devos is unqualified for a top government office, to which libertarians have been quick to suggest a clever alternative: why not shut down the Department of Education altogether? Lisa Snell, director of education and child welfare for Reason Foundation, joins the show to give an update on state-based experiments in educational choice. Bob will also discuss the surprisingly bipartisan argument for ending the $70 billion a year behemoth. Do you or a loved one have children trapped in government schools, with nowhere else to turn?
Get the Podcast

]]>The Bob Zadek ShownoJonathan Bydlak on Spending TrackerBig GovernmentDebtTaxationBob ZadekSun, 12 Mar 2017 18:53:00 +0000http://www.bobzadek.com/past-shows/2017/3/12/jonathan-bydlak-on-spending-tracker53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:58c06132414fb5594dcee5eeA new tool to monitor your representatives voting record.Taxation watchdogs like Grover Norquist have sought to hold politicians accountable to small-government philosophy using “starve the beast” logic, i.e., assuming that a lower level of taxation will force government to shrink its big-spending agenda. However, in an age of money printing and short-sighted thinking, merely arithmetic constraints like a balanced budget have been brushed aside. Jonathan Bydlak of the Institute to Reduce Spending and the Coalition to Reduce Spending takes a different approach to accountability, channelling Milton Friedman’s aphorism, “To spend is to tax.” Want to know who’s really responsible for your looming IRS bill? Bydlak urges citizens to look at how much spending their representatives are voting for. The next time a Republican politician tells you to read his lips, be sure to check his rhetoric against his voting record, using SpendingTracker.org – a new project of the Institute to Reduce Spending that uses big data to rank the worst culprits (the “spenders”) and allows for comparison with the relatively virtuous “savers.” Unsurprisingly, you’ll find “Rs” at the tops of both the "spender" and "saver" lists. Jonathan returns to the show to explain how this new tool can increase government accountability where it really matters.
Get the Podcast